Costello v. Tasker
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, inserted in a common law writ in the Superior Court dated May 5, 1916, to compel the specific performance of two agreements in writing, designated as “A” and “B,” dated January 26, 1916, to purchase from the plaintiffs at the prices therein named certain parcels of land in the part of Boston called Dorchester.
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, inserted in a common law writ in the Superior Court dated May 5, 1916, to compel the specific performance of two agreements in writing, designated as “A” and “B,” dated January 26, 1916, to purchase from the plaintiffs at the prices therein named certain parcels of land in the part of Boston called Dorchester. " The contract designated as “A” contained the following paragraph: “Said premises are to be conveyed on or before February 21, 1916, by a good and sufficient deed of the party of the first part, conveying a good and clear title to the same free from all incumbrances,…
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
It is elementary law that the office of an answer is to controvert the facts or some of them alleged in the bill, and to set up other facts upon which the rights of the defendant depend in the subject matter of the suit. While exceptions to its insufficiency can no longer be alleged, it would have been on the record appropriate practice for the plaintiffs to have moved to take the bill for confessed because each defendant filed only a general denial. Pearson v. Treadwell, 179 Mass. 462, 467, 468. Reed v. Cumberland Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 9 Stew. 393. McTwiggan v. Hunter, 19 R. I. 68. Whittemore…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dresel v. JordanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Mansfield v. WilesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- First African Methodist Episcopal Society v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Slater v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- National Webster Bank v. EldridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Charles River Park, Inc. v. Boston Redevelopment AuthorityMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1990
- Commissioner of Banks v. Tremont Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Burke v. McLaughlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Flier v. RubinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Strumskis v. TilenasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.