(Download) "Leonard v. Taylor" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Leonard v. Taylor
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 01, 1944
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
QUA, Justice. This is an action for personal injuries arising out of the operation of the defendant's automobile. On cross-examination of the defendant, counsel for the plaintiff asked the defendant whether prior to the trial the defendant had 'gone over' with his counsel written statements made by the defendant relating to the accident. The defendant answered in the affirmative. Thereupon the plaintiff's counsel 'asked the defendant's counsel for the statements.' The defendant's counsel inquired whether the plaintiff's counsel was asking him to produce them, and the plaintiff's counsel said, 'yes.' The statements were then handed to the plaintiff's counsel, who examined them and handed them back to the defendant's counsel. Thereupon the defendant's counsel offered them in evidence, and the Judge admitted them. The correctness of the Judge's ruling in admitting the statements is the point at issue. It has long been established practice in this Commonwealth that where a party at a trial calls for a document from his opponent and in response to the call receives it and examines it, the document may be put in evidence by the opponent, even though it would have been incompetent if it had not been called for and examined. This rule was fully established in Clark v. Fletcher, 1 Allen 53, 57. It has been constantly and frequently applied in the trial courts for at least eighty-three years and has continued to receive recognition in this court. Long v. Drew, 114 Mass. 77, 78, 79, 80; Boyle v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 208 Mass. 41, 94 N.E. 247, 21 Ann.Cas. 1020; Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & P. R. Corp., 215 Mass. 381, 390, 391, 102 N.E. 625; Capodilupo v. F. W. Stock & Sons, 237 Mass. 550, 551, 552, 130 N.E. 65. For cases before Clark v. Fletcher, see Commonwealth v. Davidson, 1 Cush. 33, 44-46; Reed v. Anderson, 12 Cush. 481; and see Flaherty v. Boston & Northern St. R. Co., 210 Mass. 321, 323, 96 N.E. 716. Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 279 Mass. 400, 402, 403, 181 N.E. 473. It is clear upon the present record that the documents were produced upon the demand of the plaintiff's counsel made at the trial, and that he received and examined them. The rule is therefore applicable.
 "Leonard v. Taylor" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}