Oberlander v. Carstens

Evidence — Declarations — Cross-examination — Exceptions. In an action to recover the price of certain ventilators furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant's building, the latter, before offering any evidence that a certain device for opening and fastening them was to be made to the architect’s satisfaction, and after the plaintiff had denied this, asked the plaintiff on cross-examination what the architect said about it, and the question was excluded. Subsequently, such evidence having been offered, the defendant was permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff as to the architect’s statements. Held, that the defendant had no ground of exception.

Contract to recover the price of certain ventilators furnished ■ by the plaintiff for the defendant’s building. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., the defendant set up, among other defences, that certain devices for opening and fastening the ventilators were, under the agreement between the parties, to be made and furnished to the satisfaction of the architect supervising the construction of the building. The plaintiff testified that he went to the architect’s office before the agreement was made, but denied that the openers and fasteners in question were to be made to the architect’s satisfaction or subject to his approval. Thereupon the defendant asked him, upon cross-examination, to state what the architect said to him in relation to the fasteners. The judge, upon the plaintiff’s objecting, excluded the question. Subsequently, after the defendant had offered evidence as to what the architect had said to the plaintiff during that interview, the plaintiff again testified in rebuttal, and the defendant was permitted to cross-examine him in relation to the architect’s statements. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions to the ruling excluding the question put by him to the plaintiff.