Spaulding v. Knight

• Decision Date: 05 October 1875
• Citation: Spaulding v. Knight, 118 Mass. 528 (Mass. 1875)
• Parties: Reuben Spaulding v. William S. Knight
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

118 Mass. 528

Reuben Spaulding v. William S. Knight

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 5, 1875

Worcester.Motion to the Superior Court for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence.Annexed to the motion were various affidavits of the defendant and his witnesses, and certain letters of the plaintiff.Hearing before Dewey, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The original action was in tort for deceit and conspiracy, in which the defendant and Samuel K. Elliott were charged with conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff by passing to him, as collateral security for Elliott's note of $ 800, a forged and fictitious promissory note, purporting to be for the sum of $ 750.See116 Mass. 148.After verdict, at December term 1874, and before judgment, the defendant moved to arrest judgment, set aside the verdict, and grant a new trial, on the ground that since the verdict the plaintiff had received sufficient property of Elliott to pay or secure him for Elliott's note.The motion and affidavits annexed thereto were made part of the bill of exceptions.

At the hearing, the defendant's counsel objected to the introduction of any oral evidence, either from the plaintiff or the defendant, to prove or disprove the affidavits, no affidavits having been filed by the plaintiff to oppose the motion, the facts not being of record upon which the motion was based, and the defendant having no notice of what the plaintiff would prove in opposition to the motion.The judge admitted evidence offered by the plaintiff in opposition to the allegations in the motion, and requested the defendant to produce his witnesses in court for examination, instead of hearing and deciding the case on the affidavits filed; to which the defendant excepted.

It appeared by the affidavits and evidence in the case that since the trial of the original suit, the plaintiff had exchanged about 1200 acres of western land, in Wayne County Missouri, estimated at $ 18,000, in way of trade, and took in exchange therefor certain property in Chicago, Illinois which he still holds; that said western land was conveyed to the plaintiff by one Lamb, by Spaulding paying about 75 cents an acre, being what Elliott was bound to pay to redeem the lands.The facts were in dispute as to the terms upon which Spaulding held the property, whether in trust for Elliott, or as security for the aforesaid note, or whether it was held by Spaulding free from any trust or obligation to Elliott.

The defendant asked the judge to rule, as...