Gross v. Martin
| Decision Date | 16 January 1930 |
| Citation | 148 A. 680 |
| Parties | GROSS et al. v. MARTIN. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.
Action by Anna E. Gross and others against I. J. Martin. Verdict for defendant. On plaintiffs' exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Argued before DEASY, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, PATTANGALL, and FARRLNGTON, JJ.
Tascus Atwood, of Auburn, for plaintiffs.
Harris M. Isaacson, of Lewiston, for defendant.
The bill of exceptions recites this action as of assumpsit to recover for groceries ordered by the defendant. On the authority of the bill, these were the trial court issues: (1) Whether credit had been given directly to the defendant? (2) Whether defendant orally promised to pay the debt of a lunch concern? The jury found for the defendant. Exception by plaintiffs goes to the exclusion of evidence.
This question had been asked defendant on cross-examination:
"Mr. Martin, weren't the goods ordered before you had completed the organization of the corporation? "
He answered:
To show that, when the goods were ordered, the corporation had not been in existence, its organization not having been completed until some days later, plaintiff's counsel proffered the registry record of the certificate of corporate organization in evidence. So, in substance, run recitals in the bill of exceptions.
Objection was sustained; the registry record of the certificate was excluded. This presents reversible error, is the point of exception.
The exception cannot be sustained, the reason being that the plaintiffs have not shown themselves prejudiced by the ruling which excluded the evidence.
A party excepting to the exclusion of evidence always has the burden of showing affirmatively that the exclusion was prejudicial to him. What the record of the certificate would have shown does not appear. The record was offered in evidence. It should have been printed as a part of the bill of exceptions. Posell v. Herscovitz, 237 Mass. 513, 516, 130 N. E. 69. Not being printed, it is out of the question to determine whether any prejudice was done the plaintiff by the exclusion of the evidence. True, there is the statement in the bill of exceptions that the record of the certificate was offered to prove that the corporation was not in existence, but there is nothing before this court to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. Bourque-Lanigan Post No. 5, American Legion, BOURQUE-LANIGAN
...A. 1005, L.R.A.1916F., 1130. For this reason we should be amply justified in overruling the exceptions.' To the same effect, Gross v. Martin, 128 Me. 445, 148 A. 680; Sawyer v. Hillgrove, 128 Me. 230, 146 A. 705; Bouchles v. Tibbets, 117 Me. 192, 103 A. 71; and Willey v. Maine Central R. Co......
-
State v. Ernst
...light of the evidence, where refusal to permit the question to be answered was prejudicial to the respondent. Gross v. Martin, 128 Me. 445, at page 446, 148 A. 680, at page 681: 'A party excepting to the exclusion of evidence always has the burden of showing affirmatively that the exclusion......
-
Willey v. Me. Cent. R. Co.
...prejudicial, or he can take nothing by his exceptions." Sawyer v. Hillgrove, 128 Me. 230, 232, 146 A. 705, 706. Also see Gross v. Martin, 128 Me. 445, 446, 148 A. 680; Pike v. Crehore, 40 Me. 503, The fact that the attorney read a sentence or two from an unmarked and unidentified paper, rel......
-
Rodrigue v. Letendre
...than the recital of the bill implies. About that, on this record, no one can tell, 'and no one has a right to guess.'' Gross v. Martin, 128 Me. 445, 446, 148 A. 680. The defendants seem to assert in argument that the exhibit was an 'account book' kept by a witness in the regular course of b......