Mair v. Bassett
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Citation | 117 Mass. 356 |
| Parties | Thomas Mair, executor, v. John F. Bassett |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract, with counts in tort. The nature of the case appears in the opinion.
Exceptions overruled.
E. H Derby & W. C. Williamson, for the plaintiff.
J Nickerson, for the defendant.
The controversy in this case was whether a loan of $ 4000, made by William Dillaway, the plaintiff's testator, April 14 1871, was in fact to the defendant, or to his brother Joseph R. Bassett. A note was given at the time, which had been lost; and the plaintiff endeavored to prove that the lost note was the note of the defendant. The negotiations for the loan were conducted by Joseph R. Bassett with Dillaway, and there was no evidence that the defendant was present or took part in the transaction.
1. To prove that the loan was made to the defendant, and the note given by him, the plaintiff offered in evidence certain entries in the diary of Dillaway in his handwriting, purporting to have been made April 14, 17 and 20, 1871. These entries are vague and incomplete, but giving them the most favorable construction, they are to the effect that he had made an agreement with the defendant to take his note, with certain mortgages and policies of insurance as collateral, and had paid $ 4000 to the defendant on the agreement. No evidence was offered that the defendant had ever seen the entries or had any knowledge of them, or that he had anything to do with the transaction therein recited except that he did, on April 14, assign to Dillaway, a mortgage on land in New Hampshire. These entries were merely the declarations of Dillaway, and were properly excluded as not competent to prove that the defendant borrowed the money of Dillaway and gave his note therefor.
2. The plaintiff also offered a memorandum in writing, signed by Dillaway and dated April 14, 1871, which recited that he had received the defendant's note for $ 5000, on which there was due to the defendant $ 2000; and on the same paper Joseph R. Bassett acknowledged to have received $ 1000 on the account. This was mere recital on the part of Dillaway; it was not competent evidence to prove that the defendant gave such a note, and it was rightly held that it could not be used for that purpose. But the whole paper was properly admitted as bearing upon the credibility of Joseph R. Bassett, who had testified that the loan was made to him.
3. A check upon a bank dated April 14, 1863, payable to the defendant or bearer, in the sum of $ 3000, and signed by Dillaway, was offered in evidence. In connection therewith ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turon v. J. & L. Const. Co.
...by the direction of the judge, in the charge, to return a special verdict in the event of particular findings. Compare Mair v. Bassett, 117 Mass. 356 (Sup.Jud.1875). And, generally, the answer of the foreman of the jury to the inquiry of the court is to be taken as the answer of the jury in......
-
Patterson v. Barnes
......Spooner, 12. Met. 281; Lawler v. Earle, 5 Allen, 22; Graves v. Washington. Marine Ins. Co. 12 Allen, 391, 396; Mair v. Bassett, 117. Mass. 356 , 358-359; Hadley v. Heywood, 121 Mass. 236; Spurr. v. Shelburne, 131 Mass. 429; Hart v. Brierley, 189 Mass. 598;. ......
-
Hutchinson v. Plant
...The paper which was offered had not been in the possession of the plaintiff or used at the trial, and was incompetent. Mair v. Bassett, 117 Mass. 356;Corcoran v. Batchelder, 147 Mass. 541, 18 N. E. 420;Fiske v. Cole, 152 Mass. 335, 25 N. E. 608. See, also, Flood v. Mitchell, 68 N. Y. 507;Na......
-
Hutchinson v. Plant
......The paper which. was offered had not been in the possession of the plaintiff. or used at the trial, and was incompetent. Mair v. Bassett, 117 Mass. 356; Corcoran v. Batchelder,. 147 Mass. 541, 18 N.E. 420; Fiske v. Cole, 152 Mass. 335, 25 N.E. 608. See, also, Flood v. ......