Hill v. Eldridge
| Decision Date | 28 January 1879 |
| Citation | 126 Mass. 234 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Henry Hill & another v. William T. Eldridge |
Norfolk. Contract on an account annexed for goods sold and delivered. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. Infancy, and that the goods sold were not necessaries.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., without a jury, the only question in issue was that of the defendant's infancy. The defendant was a witness, and, against the plaintiff's objection, was permitted to testify that, when the goods were purchased, he was sixteen years of age, and that, at the time of the trial, he was twenty-three years of age. It appeared that the defendant's father was dead at the time of the trial, but it did not appear whether his mother was living or not. The defendant was the only witness as to his age, and no other evidence was offered in relation thereto. The judge found for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions to the admission of the defendant's evidence.
Exceptions overruled.
L. H. Babcock, for the plaintiff.
B. D. Washburn, for the defendant, was not called upon.
This case does not present the question whether a person can be permitted to testify to the precise day of his birth. It is quite clear that one may testify, from his own knowledge of himself, whether he was twenty-one or sixteen years of age at a certain time, (which was the only material point upon which the testimony of the defendant appears to have been admitted,) and that such weight may be given to his testimony as the court or the jury trying the case may think it entitled to receive. See Cheever v. Congdon, 34 Mich. 296; Watson v. Brewster, 1 Pa. 381, 383; State v. Cain, 9 W.Va. 559, 570.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Hart
...her age, because she did not know the facts of her own personal knowledge, was of no value. This is not the law. 16 Cyc. 1124; Hill v. Eldridge, 126 Mass. 234; Tyler on Infancy, p. 205. We deem the testimony offered by plaintiff as to her age of much higher and more convincing character tha......
-
Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Lewondowski
...to the jury. Greenwood v. Spiller, 2 Scam. 502;Cheever v. Congdon, 34 Mich. 296;Morrison v. Ensley, 53 Mich. 564, 19 N. W. 187;Hill v. Eldridge, 126 Mass. 234;Houlton v. Manteuffel, 51 Minn. 185, 53 N. W. 541;Pearce v. Kyzer, 16 Lea, 521, 57 Am. Rep. 240;Com. v. Stevenson, 142 Mass. 466, 8 ......
-
State v. Schut
...time was a material question at issue. To the same effect are the following cases: State v. McClain, 49 Kan. 730, 31 Pac. 790; Hill v. Eldridge, 126 Mass. 234; State v. Cain, 9 W.Va. 559; State v. Best, 108 N.C. 747, 12 S.E. 907; Loose v. State, 120 Wis. 115, 97 N.W. 526; 2 Jones on Evidenc......
-
Commonwealth ex rel. Park v. Joyce
...of the infancy of a party, the person whose age is in issue may testify to the fact: Hanson v. Greenlee, 19 Pa. Dist. Rep. 885; Hill v. Eldridge, 126 Mass. 234; Cheever v. Congdon, 34 Mich. 296; Correy Michaelovitch, 46 R.I. 387; Pearce v. Kyzer, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 521; see Creer v. Active Auto......