Wheeler v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 12 November 1874 |
| Parties | Andrew J. Wheeler v. H. M. A. Wheeler |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract on an oral agreement.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., the plaintiff offered in evidence the report of an auditor, who found that there was an implied agreement on the part of the defendant to abide by and perform the contract set forth in the declaration. The plaintiff's counsel stated to the presiding judge, before resting his case on the report alone that the plaintiff had other evidence of the contract relied on, which he might wish to put in after the defendant's case was closed; to which the judge replied that a plaintiff having an auditor's report in his favor, had his election to put in his whole case, or to stand on the report alone in the first instance, and run the risk of being able to control the defendant's case in rebuttal; that such a course had its advantages and its disadvantages, and the counsel must elect which course to pursue, as it was within the discretion of the judge how far in such a case the plaintiff should be allowed to put in evidence to sustain the auditor's report not strictly in rebuttal of the defendant's testimony, and which would be competent for the plaintiff in the beginning. The plaintiff then rested his case.
The defendant testified that she never made, consented to, or had any knowledge of, the alleged contract. After her evidence was all in, the plaintiff offered to put in evidence as to what was said and done between the parties at the time of making the alleged contract; but the judge refused to admit it, stating to the counsel for the plaintiff that this evidence made a part of his original proof which it was competent for him to put in in the first instance; and that not having elected to put it in then, it was afterwards within the discretion of the judge to permit him to put it in or not; that under the circumstances of the case he should decline to admit any testimony not strictly in rebuttal, and as the testimony offered was not of that class he should reject it.
The jury found for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
C. P. Hinds, for the plaintiff.
P. E. Tucker, for the defendant, was not called upon.
By the Court. The evidence rejected was part of the plaintiff's case, and it was within the discretion of the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweeney v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.
...not only abide by and confirm the earlier decisions, but afford interesting instances of the application of the law. See, also, Wheeler v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 297; Brewer v. Housatonic Railroad Co., 104 Mass. 593; Lowe v. Pimental, 115 Mass. 44. In Lansky v. West End Street Railway Co., 173 ......
- Brigham v. Elwell
-
Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. City of Boston
... ... report. This exception has not been pressed or argued, and we ... treat it as waived. The ruling was clearly right. Wheeler ... v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 297. The next exception was to ... permitting one of the petitioner's witnesses to testify ... on cross-examination that ... ...
-
Pickering v. Reynolds
...not except to their exclusion when offered in chief, and has no right of exception to their exclusion when offered in rebuttal. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 297. Wallace v. Taunton Street Railway, 91. Exceptions overruled. ...