Smith v. Metropolitan Railroad

Rufus J. Smith v. Metropolitan Railroad Company

Smith v. Metro. R.R., 137 Mass. 61 (1884)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 10, 1884
Citations: 137 Mass. 611884 Mass. LEXIS 182

Cited by 1

Headnotes

In an action for personal injuries, an extract from a paper signed by the plaintiff’s attending physician, containing a statement tending to contradict his subsequent testimony at the trial, may be read to the jury, the paper itself having been excluded; and the fact that the paper is also signed by a physician in the employ of the defendant is immaterial.

Summary

Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff, on March 3, 1882, by a car of the defendant corporation being driven against the plaintiff’s wagon, from behind, whereby the plaintiff was thrown from his wagon, and injured. The defendant denied negligence on its part, and alleged a want of care on the part of the plaintiff. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., in May, 1883, the plaintiff testified as to the manner in which the injury was received, and as to the nature and extent thereof.

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.

By the Court.

The extract from the paper signed by Dr. Towle was properly admitted, as a statement made by him at a former time, tending to contradict his testimony on the stand. The fact that the paper was also signed by Dr. Nichols was immaterial. The court did not rule that the paper was admissible, or that it was competent to prove that Dr. Nichols had signed it. The ruling was, that it was competent for the defendant to read to the jury such parts of the written statement as contradicted the testimony of Dr. Towle. To this ruling the plaintiff has no ground of exception.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 1 case

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts1

Relies on it most ⓘ

McCullough v. Broad Exchange Co.101 A.D. 566 (1905) · Dissent

Most recent

McCullough v. Broad Exchange Co.101 A.D. 566 (1905) · Dissent

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.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list