Bain v. Walsh
Augusta I. Bain v. Elizabeth Walsh, Administratrix
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Virgin, J.
Assumpsit on a promissory note alleged to have been given on October 13,1883, to the plaintiff by the defendant’s intestate who deceased April 9, 1890.
*109 The non-production of the note at the trial was attempted to be accounted for by the contention that it had been lost.
The evidence of the loss adduced to lay the foundation for introduction of secondary evidence of its contents, is addressed solely to the discretion of the presiding justice ; and his decision upon its sufficiency, in the absence of any apparent abuse of his authority, is not reviewable. Camden v. Belgrade, 78 Maine, 204, 209.
The only evidence of its loss came from the plaintiff herself, who simply testified that she had not been able to find the note since the date of the maker’s decease in April, 1890; nor had she assigned or transferred it since that date. She omitted to testify by affidavit whether or not it was lost prior to that date.
Bxceptions overruled. JSTonmit confirmed.
Peters, C. J., Walton, Libbey, Foster and Haskell, JJ., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.