Huntress v. Burbank
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract by J. Frank Huntress and Robert C. Huntress against James A. Burbank, A. F. Wood, James W. Baldwin and Daniel Heald.
Read the full summary
Contract by J. Frank Huntress and Robert C. Huntress against James A. Burbank, A. F. Wood, James W. Baldwin and Daniel Heald. Writ dated October 19, 1868. Ad damnum, $1600. The declaration was as follows : “ And the plaintiffs say that the defendants executed to them a bond, a copy of which is hereto annexed; that the writ mentioned in said bond was duly entered in said Superior Court for the county of Suffolk; that at the last July term of said court, to wit, on the twenty-fifth day of said July, they recovered judgment in said action against said Burbank and Wood for the sum of one thousand…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
1. The defendants’ objections to the declaration relate merely to the form of stating the cause of action and could be taken by demurrer only. Batchelder v. Batchelder, 2 Allen, 105. Shawmut Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 9 Allen, 332. Upham v. Damon, 12 Allen, 98. It is not necessary to consider whether the declaration would be held sufficient on demurrer.
2. The defendants admitted the execution of the bond sued on, and the rendition of thé judgment, as alleged in the declaration. The execution issued upon such judgment was properly admitted in evidence to show that it was unsatisfied. The proper and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moody v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
- Bickford v. RichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by15 opinions
- Tapley v. GoodsellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Cook v. PerryMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Lewis v. RussellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Norris v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Smith v. FlandersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.