Leddy v. Barney

• Decision Date: 24 June 1885
• Citation: 2 N.E. 107,139 Mass. 394
• Parties: LEDDY v. BARNEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

139 Mass. 394

2 N.E. 107

LEDDY

v.BARNEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Filed June 24, 1885.

This was an action of tort, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff on account of the alleged negligence of the defendant. Both parties to the suit were in the employ of one Augustus Chace,-the plaintiff as a common laborer, and the defendant as a superintendent,-and the injury in question was sustained while both were engaged in their common employment. There was nothing to connect said Chace with any liability for the accident, except that the defendant was in his employ at the time of its occurrence. Plaintiff's counsel, Reed, called upon Chace with reference to the matter, and the latter, although denying all liability, gave the plaintiff $150, partly, as he testified, out of charity, and partly to release the claim which the plaintiff made upon him. Plaintiff received $120 of this amount, and signed a release under seal of all claims against Chace, and from all actions and causes of actions for damages held by him against Chace. At the trial of the present case the plaintiff testified that he did not understand the paper that he signed to be a release, but simply a receipt to show that he had received the money, and that he did not read the paper or have it read to him. The testimony of the plaintiff's counsel, who saw Mr. Chace, was admitted with reference to what was said between himself and Chace relative to a suit. To the admission of this evidence the plaintiff excepted. At the close of the case the presiding judge refused to give to the jury certain instructions requested by the plaintiff, and instructed them that if Mr. Chace paid the money to plaintiff in charity, the payment was not a bar to this suit; but if he paid it, partly on account of charity, and partly in settlement of the claim and to avoid a suit, then the release was a discharge of this action and a bar to this suit. The court further instructed the jury that it was not competent for the plaintiff to object to the release under such circumstances. The jury found for the defendant.

E.L. Barney and J.M. Wood, for plaintiff.

Morton & Jennings, for defendant.

W. ALLEN, J.

The release under seal was valid between the parties, and could not be controlled by parol evidence. The plaintiff's own testimony showed that it was executed and delivered by him at the time he received the money. The facts, if true, that the paper was not read to him, and that he understood it to be a voucher for Mr. Reed, are not material on this point. He did not ask to have it read; he had opportunity to know its contents, and it was his own fault if he did not know them. There was no...