TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stores v. White

Woodbury Stores, in Error versus Leonard White

Stores v. White, 7 Mass. 448 (1811)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1811
Citations
7 Mass. 448
Headnotes
Where, after a default, damages are assessed for the plaintiff, either by the jury or the judge, and the judge admits illegal evidence, the party aggrieved may file exceptions to such admission, and thus bring the question before the whole court. Papers filed m a case, and used as evidence in ascertaining the plaintiff’s damages after a default, are no part of the record, nor can the Court take notice of them upon a writ of error brought tc reverse a judgment rendered for such damages
Summary
Error coram, nolis, to reverse a judgment of this Court, rendered at the last May term of this Court in this county, in favor of the defendant in error, original plaintiff. The declaration was in assumpsit upon a promissory note signed by the plaintiff in error, dated April 27th, 1807, for 3000 dollars, payable to Ebenezer Storer, or order, in one hundred and twenty days, at the Union Bank, in Boston, with usual grace, and endorsed by the said Ebenezer to the defendant in error. After sundry continuances in this Court, the defendant was defaulted, and the plaintiff’s damages were assessed by the Court at 3365 dollars, for which sum, with costs, judgment was rendered. The note filed in the case was of the following tenor : — “Portland, April 27th, 1807. For value received, I promised to pay Mr. Ebenezer Storer, or order, three thousand dollars, in one hundred and twenty days, at the Union Bank, in Boston, in foreign money, with usual grace. Woodbury Storer.” And endorsed thus : — “ For value received, pay the within to Leonard White. Ebenezer Storer.” The error assigned was the variance between the note filed in the case, and the note declared on ; the former being payable in foreign money, and therefore not negotiable; and the note mentioned in the declaration being described as a negotiable note payable in cash.

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.

Ouria.

It does not appear, from the record, what was the evidence before the judge, upon which the plaintiff had his damages assessed. But we must presume that the damages were assessed for the breach of the contract declared on.

If, after the default of the defendant, the plaintiff shall move to have jury to inquire into the damages at the bar, [ *449 ] * pursuant to the provision of the statute 1784, c. 28, § 7 ; or if, without such motion, the judge shall assess the damages ; and in either case, the judge shall admit illegal evidence on the question of damages, the party aggrieved may file his exceptions to the admission, according to the proceedings in our courts; and the judge ought to allow the exceptions, that the party may have the opinion of the whole Court thereon.

In the case before us, there appears to be no error on the record For, although such a note as is described in the assignment of errors was filed in the case, yet we cannot take notice of it as a part of the record, any more than we could of a deposition, or other piece of evidence filed. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs for the defendant in error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1839–1840: 11847–1848: 11853–1854: 11855–1856: 11857–1858: 21861–1862: 11879–1880: 11885–1886: 11891–1892: 11913–1914: 11927–1928: 11939–1940: 11955–1956: 118392026peak 1857 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kirby v. Wood16 Me. 81 (1839)
  2. Dolan v. Commonwealth23 N.E.2d 904 (Mass. 1939)
  3. Came v. Brigham39 Me. 35 (1854)
  4. Dorman v. Bigelow1 Fla. 281 (1847)
  5. Commonwealth v. Sacco158 N.E. 167 (Mass. 1927)
  6. Bacon v. George216 Mass. 519 (1914)

Most recent

  1. Barassi v. Harvard Paint & Wallpaper Co.12 Mass. App. Dec. 152 (1956)
  2. Dolan v. Commonwealth23 N.E.2d 904 (Mass. 1939)
  3. Commonwealth v. Sacco158 N.E. 167 (Mass. 1927)
  4. Bacon v. George216 Mass. 519 (1914)
  5. Radclyffe v. Barton28 N.E. 148 (Mass. 1891)
  6. Parker v. Roberts63 N.H. 431 (1885)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list