Case Name: John A. Whitney vs. Alfred Bacon
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1857-10
Citations: 9 Gray 206
Docket Number: 
Parties: John A. Whitney vs. Alfred Bacon.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 206–206

Head Matter:
John A. Whitney vs. Alfred Bacon.
Declarations as to boundaries, made by one, now deceased, who had previously occupied, but never owned, the land, and who had ceased to occupy it at the time of the declarations, are inadmissible against a subsequent owner.
Action of tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close. At the trial in the court of common pleas, the plaintiff, as part of his testimony to prove the true boundary line of the close, called a witness, whom Sanger, J., against the defendant’s objection, permitted to testify that Samuel Perry, now deceased, who had previously occupied, but never owned, the land adjoining the plaintiff’s close on the line in question for about twenty five years, went with the witness, many years after he had ceased to occupy it, to the disputed line, and pointed out a ditch and certain heaps of stones as the true boundary of the plaintiff’s close. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
J. W. Bacon, for the defendant,
cited Daniel v. North, 11 East, 372; Wood v. Veal, 5 B. & Aid. 454; Tickle v. Brown, 4 Ad. & El. 369 ; Papendick v. Bridgewater, 5 El. & Bl. 176 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 145; Abington v. North Bridgewater, 23 Pick. 170; Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 223 ; Bartlett v. Emerson, 7 Gray, 174.
B. F. Ham, for the plaintiff,
cited Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. 341; Van Deusen v. Turner, 12 Pick. 532; Fund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 36 ; Adams v. Stanyan, 4 Foster, 405 ; 1 Cowen & Hill’s Notes to Phil. Ev. (3d ed.) 244-251; Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 223; Many v. Stone, 8 Cush. 4.

Opinion:
Bigelow, J.
The general role is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. To render it competent in cases of boundary, it must fall within the exception to the rule laid down in Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 228. Flagg v. Mason, 8 Gray, 557, & cases cited. In the present case, the person, whose declarations concerning the boundary of the close in question were admitted, was not in possession of the land when he made the statements which were offered in evidence. They do not therefore come within the exception, and were erroneously admitted.
Exceptions sustained.