TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Munde v. Lambie

Patrick Munde v. Jasper E. Lambie & another

Munde v. Lambie, 125 Mass. 367 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 17, 1878
Judges
Gray
Citations
125 Mass. 367
Headnotes
If a bill of exceptions, allowed by the judge at the first trial of a case, and containing statements material to the issue, is, at the second trial, taken to the jury room and read by the jury or any of them, it is sufficient ground for a new trial; and misconduct by the party, in whose favor the verdict is rendered, need not be shown. If a paper is improperly read by a jury or any of them during their deliberations, and, for this reason, a motion for a new trial is duly filed, the order of the Supe rior Court overruling this motion is a decision upon a question of law, which may be brought to this court by a bill of exceptions.
Summary
Contract. After the decision reported 122 Mass. 336, a second trial was had in the Superior Court, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, which the defendants moved to set aside, because the jury carried out with them, into the jury room, and kept there during their deliberations, the bill of exceptions, drafted by the plaintiff’s counsel and allowed by the court after the first trial and verdict for the defendants, which was read by the jury or in their hearing during such deliberations. The motion was overruled by Allen, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, stating the facts that appeared upon the hearing of the motion as follows: One of the jury was permitted to testify, against the plaintiff’s objection, that the bill of exceptions, (by which it appeared that a verdict was returned at the former trial for the defendants, and that the plaintiff alleged exceptions to certain rulings of the judge,) was handed to the jury by the officer in charge of them, with the other papers in the case; that some of the jurors read the same; and that, at the request of some of the jury, he read it aloud two or three times. It appeared that the jury were out from four o’clock in the afternoon until ten o’clock the next forenoon, and the witness, on cross-examination, testified that the jury did not agree until about three minutes before they came in with their verdict. There was no other evidence. The defendants asked the judge to rule that, if he was satisfied that the bill of exceptions was in the jury room, and was read by the jury or any of them during their deliberations, then a new trial should be granted; but the judge declined so to rule, and, finding that there was no misconduct, overruled the motion. The defendants alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gray, C. J.

The bill of exceptions tendered by the plaintiff and allowed by the judge at the first trial was not competent evidence to be laid before the jury at the second trial: As the statements therein were material to the issue and may have prejudiced the defendants, it was not neee'ssary to show misconduct on the part of the plaintiff in bringing the paper before the jury. The refusal of the judge, at the hearing of the motion to set %side the last verdict, to rule, as requested by the defendants, that, if he was satisfied that the paper was in the jury room and was read by the jury or any of them during their deliberations, a new trial should be granted, was an erroneous ruling in mattei of law, and a subject of exception. Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7. Whit *369 ney v. Whitman, 5 Mass. 405. Hix v. Drury, 5 Pick. 296 , 302. Alger v. Thompson, 1 Allen, 453 . Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass 453, 462, 466, 467. Exceptions sustained.

How later courts describe this case

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

1883–1884: 11891–1892: 11893–1894: 11935–1936: 11937–1938: 318832026peak 1937 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Long v. George7 N.E.2d 149 (Mass. 1937)
  2. Commonwealth v. Millen195 N.E. 541 (Mass. 1935)
  3. Commonwealth v. Morrison134 Mass. 189 (1883)
  4. Mason v. Knox27 A. 305 (N.H. 1891)
  5. La Bonty v. Lundgren59 N.W. 904 (Neb. 1894)
  6. B. F. Construction Co. v. Holbrook29 N.E.2d 190 (Mass. 1938)

Most recent

  1. B. F. Construction Co. v. Holbrook29 N.E.2d 190 (Mass. 1938)
  2. Herman v. Grignon2 Mass. App. Div. 349 (1937)
  3. Long v. George7 N.E.2d 149 (Mass. 1937)
  4. Commonwealth v. Millen195 N.E. 541 (Mass. 1935)
  5. La Bonty v. Lundgren59 N.W. 904 (Neb. 1894)
  6. Mason v. Knox27 A. 305 (N.H. 1891)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Whitney v. Whitman, 5 Mass. 405 (1809) 26

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