TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fay v. Harlan

William J. Fay v. Nicholas Harlan

Fay v. Harlan, 128 Mass. 244 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 19, 1880
Judges
Ames
Citations
128 Mass. 2441880 Mass. LEXIS 52
Cited by 11
Headnotes
The statements of a patient to his physician as to his symptoms and complaints, for the purpose of medical treatment and advice, and the indications of suffering on the part of the patient observed by the physician in his attendance upon him, are admissible in his favor in an action for a personal injury. The record of a criminal court, showing that a person was indicted for an offence to which he pleaded guilty, and that he was discharged on probation, is not admissible in evidence to impeach the credibility of such person as a witness, under the St. of 1870, c. 393, g 3.
Summary
Tort for assault and battery. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that he was struck upon the head by the defendant with the butt of a whip; and called Luther B. Morse, a physician, who testified that he attended the plaintiff immediately after the injury. The witness was then asked by the plaintiff, against the defendant’s objection, whether there were any complaints of suffering made by the plaintiff at the time. The judge allowed the witness to testify to such complaints made as statements of symptoms to him as attending physician. The witness also testified that he attended upon the plaintiff for several weeks after the injury, making several visits during that time. He was then asked by the plaintiff, against the defendant’s objection, whether there were indications or symptoms of suffering during those visits. The judge allowed the question to be put, and the witness testified to such indications. The plaintiff testified in his own behalf; and, to affect his credibility as a witness, the defendant offered in evidence a record, which showed that the plaintiff had been indicted for an assault, to which he pleaded guilty, and that, on acknowledgment of satisfaction and payment of costs, he was discharged on probation. The plaintiff objected to its admission; and the judge excluded it. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant 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 — Ames

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

Ames, J.

It is well settled that the declarations of a patient, as to his symptoms and complaints, to his physician, for the *245 purpose of medical treatment and advice, are competent and admissible in evidence. They are not to be considered as mere hearsay, if made with a view to be acted on in a matter of grave personal concernment, in relation to which the party has a strong and direct interest to adhere to the truth. Barber v. Merriam,, 11 Allen, 322 . All other visible symptoms and indications manifesting pain and suffering stand upon the same ground. The weight and value of such evidence are for the jury to determine in each case.

Under the statute provision that the conviction of a witness of any crime may be shown to affect his credibility, (Gen. Sts. g. 131, § 13; St. 1870, e. 393, § 3,) it has been decided that the term “ conviction ” is used in a sense including the judgment of the court, and that a plea of guilty, without such final judgment, is not sufficient. Commonwealth v. Gorham, 99 Mass. 420 . The record offered to impeach the credit of the witness does not show any such judgment, but only that he was discharged on probation. See also Commonwealth v. Lockwood, 109 Mass. 323, 330 ; Commonwealth v. Dowdicans Bail, 115 Mass. 133 ; Partridge v. Hood, 120 Mass. 403 . Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1882–1883: 11886–1887: 11892–1893: 11896–1897: 11898–1899: 21906–1907: 11918–1919: 11922–1923: 11948–1949: 11984–1985: 118822026peak 1898 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commonwealth v. Hersey85 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. 1949)
  2. Davidson v. Cornell30 N.E. 573 (N.Y. 1892)
  3. Keyes v. City of Cedar Falls78 N.W. 227 (Iowa 1899)
  4. Roosa v. Boston Loan Co.132 Mass. 439 (1882)
  5. State v. Blydenburg112 N.W. 634 (Iowa 1907)
  6. McKeigue v. City of Janesville31 N.W. 298 (Wis. 1887)

Most recent

  1. Commonwealth v. Rossi473 N.E.2d 708 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)
  2. Commonwealth v. Hersey85 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. 1949)
  3. Hutchinson v. Jersey Central Traction Railroad126 A. 482 (N.J. 1923)
  4. Barna v. Gleason Coal Co.98 S.E. 158 (W. Va. 1919)
  5. State v. Blydenburg112 N.W. 634 (Iowa 1907)
  6. Jackson v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.55 S.W. 376 (Tex. App. 1899)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Commonwealth v. Lockwood, 109 Mass. 323 (1872) 99
Commonwealth v. Bail, 115 Mass. 133 (1874) 85
Commonwealth v. Gorham, 99 Mass. 420 (1868) 54
Partridge v. Hood, 120 Mass. 403 (1876) 16

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