Kumin v. Fine

• Decision Date: 02 January 1918
• Citation: 118 N.E. 187,229 Mass. 75
• Parties: KUMIN v. FINE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

229 Mass. 75

118 N.E. 187

KUMIN

v.FINE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Jan. 2, 1918.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County.

Action by Samuel Kumin against Barnard Kaplan, Maurice Fine, Ida Fine, and another. There were judgments for defendants Fine, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Geo. A. Drury, Fred A. Walker, and J. Fred Humes, all of Worcester, for plaintiff.

Thos. H. Sullivan and Geo. A. Gaskill, both of Worcester, for defendants Fine.

CROSBY, J.

These are two actions of contract, tried together, to recover the amount of two promissory notes given by the defendant Barnard Kaplan to the plaintiff, and indorsed by the other defendants. The notes were given in renewal of previous notes given by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The defendants Fine contended that when the original notes were given they indorsed them for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and that in consideration of such indorsements of the notes and of the renewals, the plaintiff would hold them harmless. The jury, in answer to a special question submitted to them, found that the notes declared on were signed by the defendants Fine at the request and for the accommodation of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff offered in evidence four letters written by him to the defendant Maurice Fine. They were excluded by the presiding judge, subject to the plaintiff's exception. It appeared that notes in renewal of previous notes indorsed by the defendants Fine were given to the plaintiff after the receipt of all the lettes. It was agreed that no reply was made to any of the letters, each of which in substance stated that the plaintiff would look to the defendant Maurice Fine for payment of the note therein referred to, if it was not paid by Kaplan, the maker. These letters, written before the notes declared on were indorsed by the defendants Fine, plainly were inadmissible, although we do not mean to intimate that they would have been competent if written afterwards.

The rule is well established that a person to whom a letter is addressed ordinarily is not required to make any reply; and failure to answer it is no evidence of the truth of the facts therein stated, because such evidence would be in violation of the rule that a party cannot make evidence for himself by his own declarations. It was held in Wiedeman v. Walpole, [1891] 2 Q. B. 534, that in an action for breach of promise of marriage the mere fact that the defendant did not answer letters written to him by the plaintiff in which she stated...