¶1The order of proof was in the discretion of the court. The evidence objected to does not appear to have been admitted for any other purpose than to show that the plaintiff had money which he might have lent to the defendants. If the defendants denied that the plaintiff had such money, this evidence was competent. If not, it was immaterial. The bill of exceptions does not show that the defendants could have been prejudiced by its admission. Exceptions overruled.
121 Mass. 293
Higgins v. Andrews
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 10, 1876
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1876-11-10
Contract on a promissory note, dated May 18, 1868, arid alleged to have been made by the defendants, under the firm name of Andrews Brothers. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the defendant, N. M. Andrews, the only party defending, introduced evidence tending to prove that there was no consideration for the note.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1876-11-10
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1943
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →