Case ID: mass_277/html/0138-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanley Stykowski vs. Samuel Kaplan & another.
    Bristol.
    October 26, 1931.
    October 27, 1931.
    Present: Hugo, C.J., Ckosby, Carroll, Sanderson, & Field, JJ.
    
    
      Minor. Evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof.
    At the hearing in a district court of an action to recover the price paid in a purchase of a chattel by the plaintiff, who alleged that, when he made the contract to purchase, he was a minor and that he disaffirmed it, the burden of proving such minority was on the plaintiff and, the judge not being required to believe testimony of the plaintiff and of his father upon which the plaintiff relied for such proof, a finding for the defendant should not be disturbed on appeal.
    Contract. Writ in .the Third District Court of Bristol dated January 28, 1930.
    The action was heard in the District Court by Doran, J. The judge found for the defendant, and reported the action to the Appellate Division for the Southern District. The report was ordered dismissed. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      J. Ferriera, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief.
    No argument nor brief for the defendants.
   By the Court.

This action is based on the contention that the plaintiff, because he was a minor, had a right to disaffirm a contract for the purchase of a chattel made by him with the defendants and to recover the consideration paid by him. An essential element of the plaintiff’s case was to prove that he was a minor at the time the contract was made. That was a pure question of fact. Although the plaintiff testified that he was a minor, and was partially corroborated by testimony of his father, the trial judge was not satisfied that either knew the true age of the plaintiff and found for the defendants. On the printed report the testimony appears unsatisfactory. That may have been intensified by the appearance of the witnesses. The trial judge was not bound to believe them. His adverse finding of fact is conclusive against the plaintiff. There was no error of law in dealing with the requests for rulings.

Order dismissing report affirmed.