Liddle v. Old Lowell National Bank
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Joan Subecz v. David M. Curtis (1st Cir. 1973)
- Commonwealth v. Clemons (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)
- Commonwealth v. West (Mass. 1942)
- Kislowski v. Monkiewicz (Mass. 1941)
- Langan v. Pianowski (Mass. 1940)
- City of Boston v. Santosuosso (Mass. 1940)
- Commonwealth v. Gallo (Mass. 1931)
- McGrath v. Fash (Mass. 1923)
- Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co. v. Chandler (Mass. 1911)
- Smith v. Holyoke Street Railway Co. (Mass. 1911)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The question put to the doctor on cross-ex-animation, and the evidence of the witness Stackpole, were intended to show admissions or statements by the former more or less inconsistent with his testimony, in that they treated the plaintiff’s injury as less serious than he represented it on the stand. For this purpose, the questions were admissible. So far as the answers possibly could have prejudiced the plaintiff, if at all, it was by showing such an inconsistency. An inconsistency need not be expressed in contradictory propositions ; it is enough if the implications of what has been said tend in a different direction from what is sworn to.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.