Citation network
Bates Vs. Preble
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 08, 1894
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 149 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Bates v. PrebleSearch
-
U.S. 149 (1894) Bates v. PrebleSearch
-
business, when supplemented by the oath of the party who kept them, may be admitted in evidence. Insurance Company v. WeideSearch
-
Cogswell v. DolliverSearch
-
White v. AmblerSearch
-
Smith's Leading Cases, 6th Am. ed. 508, 510. In New York, they are held to be admissible. Halsey v. SinsebaughSearch
-
McCormick v. PennSearch
-
Central Railroad, 49 N.Y. 303, 315. The cases in Massachusetts apparently favor a different view. Commonwealth v. FoxSearch
-
Dugan v. MahoneySearch
-
Commonwealth v. FordSearch
-
Commonwealth v. JeffsSearch
-
Field v. ThompsonSearch
-
Mass. 151. In this Court, it was held in Insurance Companies v. WeidesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
case (9 Wall. 76 U. S. 677 ), this seems to have been the character of the entries. See also Chaffee v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 18 Wall. 516. In Maxwell's v. WilkinsonSearch
-
of such memoranda as independent evidence was not, however, decided. In Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. O'BrienSearch
-
which had no proper place in their deliberations. The precise question involved here arose in Kalamazoo Novelty Co. v. McAlisterSearch
-
at the unproved part should not be taken as relieving its admission to the jury room from error. See also Commonwealth v. EdgerlySearch
-
Stoudenmire v. HarperSearch
-
common law actions adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts prior to the enactment of section 14. Homer v. FishSearch
-
Welles v. FisherSearch
-
Farnam v. BrooksSearch
-
concealment as is contemplated by the statute, and that some positive act of concealment must be proved. Thus in Nudd v. HamplinSearch
-
of the cause of action as will prevent the bar of the statute. The court cited with approval the case of Cole v. McGlathrySearch
-
at all times by inquiry of the persons who should have received the money. The court also cited the case of McKown v. WhitmoreSearch
-
a fraudulent concealment, because the plaintiff had at all times the means of discovering the truth. In Walker v. SouleSearch
-
were not sufficient to prove a subsequent fraudulent concealment from the knowledge of the plaintiff. So in Abbott v. NorthSearch
-
that implied from the transaction itself. This is illustrated by the case of First Massachusetts Turnpike Corporation v. FieldSearch
-
and that the fraud was in fact concealed from the knowledge of the plaintiffs. So, in Manufacturers' National Bank v. PerrySearch
-
received the money, and constituted a fraudulent concealment of the plaintiff's cause of action. So in Atlantic Bank v. HarrisSearch
-
See also Page 151 U. S. 162 Wood v. CarpenterSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bates v. PrebleSearch
-
Halsey v. SinsebaughSearch
-
Commonwealth v. FoxSearch
-
Chaffee v. UnitedSearch
-
In Maxwell's v. WilkinsonSearch
-
In Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. O'BrienSearch
-
Kalamazoo Novelty Co. v. McAlisterSearch
-
Commonwealth v. EdgerlySearch
-
Homer v. FishSearch
-
Nudd v. HamplinSearch
-
of Cole v. McGlathrySearch
-
of McKown v. WhitmoreSearch
-
In Walker v. SouleSearch
-
Abbott v. NorthSearch
-
of First Massachusetts Turnpike Corporation v. FieldSearch
-
Manufacturers' National Bank v. PerrySearch
-
Atlantic Bank v. HarrisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial