Legal Opinion

Ferguson & Co. v. Melillo

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 9, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

Recovery is sought of the amount due on a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of the plaintiff. The writ as originally sued out named as defendants “Dominick Melillo and Adelaide Melillo, both of Boston.” Attachment of property was made upon the writ and service was made upon both defendants. Thereupon the defendants duly demanded of the plaintiff a copy of the declaration in accordance with G. L. c. 231, § 12. The plaintiff seasonably furnished the defendants with a copy, properly entitled, which contained four counts, three in contract and one in tort, all alleged to be for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Simeon v. CrammMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
  2. Bowles v. PalmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
  3. Brow v. NortonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Union Savings Bank v. CameronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  2. Stuart v. St. Regis Paper Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API