Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Me. 167

Dwinel v. Pottle

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1850

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1850-07-01

Exceptions from the District Court. Assumpsit for barrels sold. The plaintiff introduced his book of accounts, took the suppletory oath, and testified that he made the charge for the barrels at the date of the book-charge. He further testified, (against the objection of the defendant,) that the barrels were not paid for. On cross-examination, he testified that he did not deliver the barrels, but was absent from home when they were taken.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1922

2 state decisions

Relies on Cogswell v. Dolliver · Faxon v. Hollis · Inhabitants of Bath v. Inhabitants of Bowdoin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Howard, J.

¶1Where a person has charged another, upon his books of account, with goods, or with labor and services, which may be the proper subjects of such charge, he is admitted in our courts, as a competent witness to support his claim for the account by his suppletory oath, generally, when better evidence, from the nature of the subject, is not attainable. But in order to render his books admissible as evidence, when the entries are made by himself, and supported by his oath, only, he must swear that he made them at, or about the time they purport to have been made ; that they are his original entries of the transaction ; and that the articles and services were respectively delivered, and performed, as there charged. Cogswell v. Dolliver, 2 Mass. 217; Prince v. Smith, 4 Mass. 455; Faxon v. Hollis, 13 Mass. 427; Dunn v. Whitney, 10 Maine, 12; Mitchell v. Belknap, 23 Maine, 477; Leighton v. Manson, 14 Maine, 213; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 118, and notes; Pothier on Obl., part 4, ch. 1, art. 2, § 4; 1 Smith’s Leading Cases, 142; Eastman v. Moulton, 3 N. H. 157.

¶2*169To prove his claim, the plaintiff relied solely upon, the evidence furnished by his book, and his suppletory oath. He did not, however, swear to a delivery of the articles charged by him, and did not, therefore, present a case in which his book was competent evidence to be submitted to a jury.

¶3The exceptions are sustained and a new trial granted.

/31/me/167 · .json · Public domain