Blair v. Inhabitants of Pelham, 118 Mass. 420 (Mass. 1875). · Go Syfert
Search
Blair v. Inhabitants of Pelham, 118 Mass. 420 (Mass. 1875). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events across 25 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Teller v. Schepens, 518 N.E.2d 868 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 421 cited at this page · 3 citing cases
  • Teller v. Schepens, 518 N.E.2d 868 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988).
    Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420, 421 (1875).
  • Commonwealth v. B.Y.S., 348 N.E.2d 431 (Mass. 1976).
    In what was probably the earliest case to reach this court on the admissibility of photographic evidence, Marcy v. Barnes, 16 Gray 161 (1860), this court said (at 163-164): “Under proper precautions in relation to the preliminary *358 proo…
  • Snow v. Massachusetts Tpk. Auth., 161 N.E.2d 759 (Mass. 1959).
    See Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420, 421; De Forge v. New York, N. H. & H.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Luke K. Blair
v.
Inhabitants of Pelham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Sep 22, 1875.
118 Mass. 420
1875 Mass. LEXIS 390
0. Delano, for the plaintiff., D. W. Bond, for the defendant, was not called upon.
Gray.
Cited by 61 opinions  |  Published
Gray, C. J.

1. A plan or picture, whether made by the hand of man or by photography, is admissible in evidence, if verified by proof that it is a true representation of the subject, to assist the jury in understanding the case. Marcy v. Barnes, 16 Gray, 161. Hollenbeck v. Rowley, 8 Allen, 473. Cozzens v. Higgins, 1 Abbott N. Y. 451. Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 213. Udderzook v. Commonwealth, 76 Penn. St. 340. Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wisc. 512. Whether it is sufficiently verified is a preliminary question of fact, to be decided by the judge presiding at the trial, and not open to exception. Commonwealth v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481, 505. Walker v. Curtis, 116 Mass. 98.

[*422] 2. The evidence of what happened at the same place the year before was rightly rejected; because it tended to raise a collateral issue; and because, it being admitted that the highway had been in the same condition for twenty-four hours before the injury now sued for, the previous length of time for which it had existed was immaterial. Aldrich v. Pelham, 1 Gray, 510. Payne v. Lowell, 10 Allen, 147. Exceptions overruled.