Sanborn v. Gale
| Citation | 162 Mass. 412,38 N.E. 710 |
| Parties | SANBORN v. GALE. |
| Decision Date | 28 November 1894 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
J.W. Pickering, for plaintiff.
G.F. Piper, for defendant.
The plaintiff's cause of action was complete at the time when he discovered his wife in the act of adultery with the defendant; and, as this was more than six years before he brought suit, the action was barred by the statute of limitations (Pub.St. c. 197, § 1, cl. 4), unless saved by the provisions of section 14 as to a fraudulent concealment by the defendant of the cause of action. The wife's confession in 1892 did not disclose any subsequent adultery or any cause of action accruing at a later date; and if it would show that she, through the procurement of the defendant, had agreed to deny the facts, that is not the same thing as fraudulently concealing the cause of action. A cause of action cannot be said to be concealed from one who has a personal knowledge of the facts which create it, although he may have no other means of establishing his case than by his own testimony. See Nudd v. Hamblin, 8 Allen, 130; Jackson v. Buchunan, 59 Ind. 390. Moreover, the confession was not competent against the defendant, because the plaintiff could not be allowed to testify as to a private conversation with his wife (Pub.St c. 169, § 18, cl. 1); and also because the defendant would not be bound and could not be affected by such a confession made in his absence (Pond v. Pond, 132 Mass. 219, 223). Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luick v. Arends
......Anderson, 9 Kan. 112; Chicago, K. & N. R. Co. v. Ellis, 52 Kan. 41, 33 P. 478; Van Zandt. v. Shuyler, 2 Kan.App. 118, 43 P. 295; Sanborn v. Gale, 162 Mass. 412, 26 L.R.A. 864, 38 N.E. 710;. Hitchcock v. Moore, 70 Mich. 112, 14 Am. St. Rep. 474, 37 N.W. 914; Newstrom v. St. Paul ......
-
Pugsley v. Smyth
...... as such were completely shielded by the statute. Harper. v. Harper, 252 F. 39, 164 C. C. A. 151; Sanborn v. Gale, 162 Mass. 412, 38 N.E. 710, 26 L. R. A. 864;. Kohlhoss v. Mobley, 102 Md. 199, 62 A. 236, 5 Ann. Cas. 865; Westlake v. ......
-
White v. Peabody Const. Co., Inc.
...of which the plaintiffs were fully aware. Denials of this sort would not constitute fraudulent concealment. Sanborn v. Gale, 162 Mass. 412, 413-414, 38 N.E. 710 (1894). The plaintiffs suggest that the defendants undertook "superficial waterproofing repairs, affirmatively attempting to mask ......
-
Spearman v. State
...which confessions were made to her husband, cannot be shown in an action by her husband against the paramour. Sanborn v. Gale, 162 Mass. 412, 38 N. E. 710, 26 L. R. A. 864; Higham v. Vanosdol, 101 Ind. 160. Nor in an action of libel, by charging the plaintiff with unchastity, can the defend......