Lord Electric Co. v. Morrill
| Decision Date | 05 March 1901 |
| Parties | LORD ELECTRIC CO. v. MORRILL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. M. Hallowell, for plaintiff.
C. W Rowley, for defendant.
This is an action to recover of the defendant his share of the expense of certain electrical work done by the plaintiff in a building called the 'Jewelers' Building,' on the corner of Washington and Bromfield streets, in Boston. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is here on defendant's exceptions to the refusal of the court to rule that on the pleadings and evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, to the admission of a conversation over the telephone with the defendant, and to the judge's charge.
1. As to the conversation over the telephone, the witness testified that he recognized the defendant's voice. This was sufficient evidence of identity to justify the court in admitting the evidence. The conversation does not seem to have been material, but we discover no way in which the defendant could have been harmed by it.
2. The only matter to which the attention of the court appears to have been called, in sonnection with the ruling that was asked that the action could not be maintained on the pleadings and evidence, was the statute of frauds. But there was evidence which justified the jury in finding, as they must have found, under the instructions of the court, that the undertaking was an original undertaking on the part of the defendant, and not a promise to answer for the debt of another. The defendant now contends, further, that the declaration counts on his liability for the whole amount of the expense, with credits for the amounts paid by March, and by Wells and Dana, trustees, rather than on his liability for a fixed and certain sum as a part of the whole expense, which was what the plaintiff's evidence tended to show was the case. The defendant therefore contends, in substance, that there was a variance between the declaration and the proof. It does not appear from the exceptions that this aspect of the ruling that was asked for was called in any way to the attention of the court. It is fair to assume from the charge that it was not. The manner in which the plaintiff's contention, and what it was necessary for it to prove, was stated, would seem to show almost conclusively that it could not have been. The amount for which the plaintiff seeks to hold ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. McQuaid
......348, 69 N.W. 1088;. Harrison G. Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 145 Mich. 712, 108. N.W. 1081, and Lord Electric Co. v. Morrill, 178. Mass. 304, 59 N.E. 807. In each of these cases there was. either a ......
-
Commonwealth v. Wakelin
...manner of a telephone. No scientific explanation of the apparatus or of the phenomena produced by it was necessary. Lord Electric Co. v. Morrill, 178 Mass. 304, 59 N. E. 807. It was for the jury to say what weight should be given to the testimony. McCarthy v. Peach, 186 Mass. 67, 70 N. E. 1......
-
Commonwealth v. Gettigan
...time, and upon Tappan's testimony alone there was no evidence that the conversation which he had was with Lindsay. Lord Electric Co. v. Morrill, 178 Mass. 304, 59 N. E. 807;Commonwealth v. Wakelin, 230 Mass. 567, 574, 120 N. E. 209;Jamaica Pond Garage, Inc., v. Woodside Motor Livery, Inc., ......
-
Dorchester Trust Co. v. Casey
...in evidence when the witness testifies that he recognized the voice of the person with whom he was talking. Lord Electric Co. v. Morrill, 178 Mass. 304, 306, 307, 59 N. E. 807. To render such testimony admissible there must be evidence as to the identity of the person who talked over the te......