Jamaica Pond Garage, Inc. v. Woodside Motor Livery, Inc.

Jamaica Pond Garage, Inc. v. Woodside Motor Livery, Inc., 236 Mass. 541 (1920)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: December 9, 1920
Citations: 236 Mass. 541

Cited by 7 1 descriptions by later courts

Headnotes

Evidence, Of telephone conversation, Competency. Where, at the trial of an action for motor vehicle hire, the plaintiff and the defendant both testify that the agreement of hiring was made in a telephone conversation between them, but they differ as to the amount agreed upon as hire, testimony of one who stated that he was present when the plaintiff was telephoning to the defendant and heard the plaintiff state as “all right” a rate, which was the rate which the plaintiff had testified that he had named, is not hearsay evidence and is competent and admissible.

Summary

Contract upon accounts annexed for motor vehicle hire. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated December 12, 1919. The judge of the Municipal Court found for the plaintiff and reported the case to the Appellate Division, who dismissed the report. The defendant appealed.

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.

An issue of fact in the trial court was the price agreed between the parties for motor vehicle hire. One Wolf- *542 son, agent of the plaintiff, testified that in telephone conversation with one Woodside, representing the defendant, $4 per hour was stipulated between them, while Woodside testified that the price was $3.50 per hour. A witness, having testified that he was present when Wolfson said he was telephoning with Woodside, then was permitted to testify that at that time he heard Wolfson say into the telephone “four dollars an hour is all right.” In this, there was no error of law. It was not hearsay evidence. It tended to confirm the testimony of Wolfson in part. Its weight depended upon the finding whether Wolfson’s testimony to the effect that Woodside was at the other end of the telephone during that conversation was true; but that was wholly a question of fact. See Commonwealth v. Wakelin, 230 Mass. 567, 574, 575 .

Order dismissing report affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(price stated for rental vehicle, overheard by witness who testified at trial, was not hearsay, but corroborated plaintiff’s claim of agreed-upon price)

Shimer v. Foley, Hoag & Eliot LLP, 795 N.E.2d 599 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Commonwealth v. Gettigan252 Mass. 450 (1925)
Shimer v. Foley, Hoag & Eliot LLP795 N.E.2d 599 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)
Takahashi v. Hecht Co.64 F.2d 710 (D.C. Cir. 1933)
State v. Lunn456 P.2d 216 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)
Greenberg v. Greenberg133 N.E. 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 1921)
State v. Reznik207 A.2d 77 (Conn. App. Ct. 1964)

Most recent

Shimer v. Foley, Hoag & Eliot LLP795 N.E.2d 599 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)
DiBenedetto v. Scott Properties, Inc.1988 Mass. App. Div. 31 (1988)
State v. Lunn456 P.2d 216 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)
State v. Reznik207 A.2d 77 (Conn. App. Ct. 1964)
Takahashi v. Hecht Co.64 F.2d 710 (D.C. Cir. 1933)
Commonwealth v. Gettigan252 Mass. 450 (1925)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Commonwealth v. Wakelin, 230 Mass. 567 (1918)	70

`/`	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