Nichols v. Munsel
| Decision Date | 15 September 1874 |
| Citation | 115 Mass. 567 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mary B. Nichols v. Erastus Munsel & wife |
Franklin. Writ of dower. At the trial in the Superior Court before Lord, J., the fact of the seisin of Danforth Nichols was admitted, and the only question in dispute was whether Danforth Nichols and the demandant were lawfully married; it being contended by the tenants that the demandant had a husband living at the time of her alleged marriage with Nichols.
The record of the demandant's marriage with Danforth Nichols was duly proved, and was legal in form, and also the fact that she lived with him as his wife most of the time from 1856 to his death in 1871. The tenants introduced a record of a marriage of the demandant with Michael Longinotti in Italy in 1847, and evidence that he was alive at the time of the trial, not having ever been divorced.
The presiding judge ruled that the burden of proof was on the demandant to prove that she was the lawful widow of Danforth Nichols; that the fact of her marriage with Nichols in 1856 though it made a prima facie case for her, yet the burden of proof did not change; and that notwithstanding she went through the legal form of marriage in 1856, the burden still remained on her throughout; although the demandant contended that the burden was on the tenants to prove that the marriage in 1856 was illegal.
After the jury had been out over night, some eighteen hours, they came into court at the request of the judge, and being asked if there was any prospect of their agreeing, the foreman said there was not. They were asked if they desired any instructions upon the law? The foreman said they did not. Thereupon the presiding judge proceeded to review the case and to restate the evidence to the jury at length. The jury, at the request of the court, then retired to their room, and in a few minutes rendered a verdict for the tenants, and the demandant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
C. C. Conant, (S. O. Lamb with him,) for the demandant.
A. De Wolf, for the tenants.
1. The single issue presented by the pleadings was whether the demandant had been lawfully married to Danforth Nichols. Upon that issue, the burden of proof rested on her throughout the trial. Evidence that she had gone through the legal form of marriage with him made a prima facie case for her and so the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Logan v. Freerks
... ... It is not the policy of the ... courts to make a multitude of suits, but to prevent ... litigation. Conaughty v. Nichols, 42 N.Y. 83, 76 ... N.Y. 211, 77 N.Y. 99 ... The ... court erred in holding that the burden of proof was upon the ... Butler, 2 Gray, 130; ... Bacon v. Rogers, 8 Allen, 146; Robinson v ... Railway Co., 7 Gray, 94; Nichols v. Munsel, 115 ... Mass. 567; Morrison v. Clarke, 7 Cush. 213; ... Brown v. King, 5 Metc. 173; Wood v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 51 Wis. 201, 8 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Robertson v. Hope
...of falsity devolves on the party asserting it. Long v. Joplin Mining Co., 68 Mo. 422; Central Bridge v. Butler, 2 Gray, 130; Nichols v. Munsel, 115 Mass. 567. RAY, J. This is a suit in the name of the state at the relation of Robertson against defendant, Hope, and the co-defendants as his s......
-
Gibson v. Int'l Trust Co.
...of proof. Powers v. Russell, 13 Pick. 69, 76;Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. 364, 366;Bridge Corp. v. Butler, 2 Gray, 130;Nichols v. Munsel, 115 Mass. 567;Willett v. Rich, 142 Mass. 356, 7 N. E. 776;Broult v. Hanson, 158 Mass. 17, 32 N. E. 900. The question whether a person or corporation runni......
-
Jones v. Prospect Mountain Tunnel Co.
... ... 271; ... Blunt v. Barrett, 124 N.Y. 119, 26 N.E. 318: ... Claflin v. Meyer, 75 N.Y. 260; Willett v ... Rich, 142 Mass. 357, 7 N.E. 776; Nichols v ... Munsel, 115 Mass. 567; Wilder v. Cowles, 100 ... Mass. 490; Tarbox v. Steamboat Co., 50 Me. 345; ... Small v. Crewley, 62 Me. 157; ... ...