¶1The presiding judge properly ruled that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to show that the price of the goods sold was due and payable at the time of instituting the present action. The further ruling, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to offer additional evidence as affirmative proof of their original case, after the evidence of the defendants had been closed, furnishes no legal gfound for exceptions. If admitted at all, it is a matter within the discretion of the court, and is admissible under peculiar circumstances requiring it. Its rejection furnishes no cause for exception. Morrison v. Clark, 7 Cush. 213. York v. Pease, 2 Gray, 282. Exceptions overruled.
72 Mass. 507
Macullar v. Wall
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 15, 1856
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1856-09-15
<p>In an action for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff introduced his books of account and other evidence tending to show a sale" and delivery of the goods; and the defendant introduced evidence that the goods were sold on a credit which had not expired when the action was brought. Held, that evidence of admissions of the defendant that the goods were to be paid for on delivery was merely affirmative of the plaintiff’s original case: and that the refusal of the presiding judge to admit such evidence in rebuttal was therefore no ground of exception.</p>
Decided 1856-09-15