History
  • No items yet
midpage
Packard v. Dunsmore
65 Mass. 282
Mass.
1853
Check Treatment
Metcalf, J.

We are of opinion that these exceptions cannot be sustained. The delivery of the key of the building, under the circumstances of the case, was a sufficient delivery of the personal property within it. Ross on Vendors, (1st ed.) 11, 55; 2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 499, 500; Wilkes v. Ferris, 5 Johns. 335 ; Chappel v. Marvin, 2 Aik. 79. And as the witness to the lease, when she affixed her name to it, and also at the time of the trial, was incompetent to testify to its execution, proof of the parties’ handwriting was admissible, as if there had been no attesting witness. Nelius v. Brickell, 1 Hayw. 19; Amherst Bank v. Root, 2 Met. 533; Roscoe on Ev. 65.

Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Packard v. Dunsmore
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Oct 15, 1853
Citation: 65 Mass. 282
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.