Legal Opinion

Taylor v. City of Haverhill

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 5, 1944PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.

The case was heard on bill and answer. Rule 31 of the Superior Court (1932). Therefore all facts well pleaded in the answer, and all facts well pleaded in the bill and not denied or contradicted in the answer, are to be taken as true. Borggaard v. Department of Public Works, 298 Mass. 417, 419. Karcher v. Burbank, 303 Mass. 303, 304. Applying that principle to the pleadings, the facts upon which the case must be decided are as follows.

The defendant Barrows is the treasurer of Haverhill, and the defendant Watson is its custodian of tax title property under St. 1938, c. 358, as amended by St.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Karcher v. BurbankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  2. Michelson v. ShermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  3. Parrotta v. HedersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  4. Riley v. FarnsworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  5. Rosenblatt v. Holstein Rubber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Epdee Corp. v. RichmondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
  2. Hunt v. RiceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988
  3. Albee v. Lamson & Hubbard Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  4. Commonwealth v. JaundooMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
  5. Dvorkin v. Township of DoverSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API