Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 233
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 77 (2026)

Authenticated copies of records of banks and trust companies

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 77. Copies from the records, books and accounts of a trust company, co-operative bank, national bank or savings bank, doing business in the commonwealth, shall be competent evidence in all cases, equally with the originals thereof, if there is annexed to such copies an affidavit, taken before a clerk of a court of record or notary public, under the seal of such court or notary, stating that the affiant is the officer having charge of the original records, books and accounts, and that the copy is correct and is full so far as it relates to the subject matter therein mentioned.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2021 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Perez, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 51 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Perez, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 51 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “The defendant’s other appellate argument is based on G. L. c. 233, § 77, an evidentiary statute specific to bank records.”
Commonwealth v. Monahan, 207 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. 1965). “Monahan by his forty-fifth assignment claims error in the admission in evidence of photostatic reproductions of checks payable to him, on the ground that there was no compliance with G. L. c. 233, §§ 77 and 78, as to preliminary findings prerequisite to the admission of such…”
Commonwealth v. James Lehan., 176 N.E.3d 1016 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021). “See G. L. c. 233, §§ 77, 77A; Commonwealth v.”
Azran v. Potter, 1996 Mass. App. Div. 202 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1996). “…of the original records and that the copy was correct and complete as it related to the promissory note in question. G.L.c. 233, §77.”
E. Bank v. Henderson, 122 N.E.3d 1098 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “The defendant's second argument is that the two exhibits attached to the Kaznoski affidavit were inadmissible under G.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.