Linehan v. City of Cambridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for work done and materials furnished in building a sewer for the defendants. The plaintiff filed interrogatories to the engineer and the clerk of the defendant city, which they refused to answer; and he then moved for a default to be entered against the defendants for the reason of said refusal. The motion was heard by Wells, J., and reserved for the decision of the full court.
1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.
The right to interrogate the adverse party in an action at law was first given by the practice act of ■ 1851, c. 233. The act of 1852, c. 312, contained an additional provision that where the party is a corporation “ the opposite party may examine the president, treasurer, clerk or any director or other officer ” of the corporation in the same manner as if he was a party to the suit. See Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 50.
This suit is against a city, and the city clerk and the city engineer refuse to answer interrogatories propounded to them as officers of the city, upon the ground that towns and cities…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Fourth School-District v. WoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3Cited by19 opinions
- Brooks v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Proprietors of Mount Hope Cemetery v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Donohue v. City of NewburyportMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Phillips v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Prout v. Inhabitants of the Fire District in PittsfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.