Capron v. Anness

Decided January 30, 1884

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1884-01-30

Conteact. The declaration was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that Howard F. Solomon gave the plaintiff an order upon the defendant for the amount of money which was then due from the defendant to the said Solomon, to wit, the sum of fifty dollars; which order the defendant accepted and agreed to pay, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed, and the defendant owes the plaintiff the amount for which said order was given, to wit, the sum of fifty dollars.” The copy annexed was…

Relies on Tapley v. Goodsell · Commonwealth v. Morrison · Chace v. Sherman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-01-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1919

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 →

Holmes, J.

¶1If there is any exception to what took place at the trial properly before us, it must be overruled. Supposing that the allegation that fifty dollars was due Solomon would have been bad on demurrer, for want of an averment of consideration, an objection to the informality could not be taken in the form of an objection to evidence in support of it. Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176, 181. Chace v. Sherman, 119 Mass. 387, 391. Furthermore, the evidence would have been admissible, in any event, for another purpose, to prove the amount for which the order purported to be given, as matter which necessarily rested in paroi.

¶2The motion for a new trial discloses nothing which is open to revision here. See Haverhill Loan & Fund Association v. Cronin, 4 Allen, 141; Commonwealth v. Morrison, 134 Mass. 189.

¶3Exceptions overruled.