Hunt v. Lucas
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a promissory note dated September 27, 1867 payable ten days after date to the order of the defendant, and ny him signed and indorsed to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Contract on a promissory note dated September 27, 1867 payable ten days after date to the order of the defendant, and ny him signed and indorsed to the plaintiffs. Writ dated October 19, 1867. In the superior court, the defendant filed the following motion: “ And now the defendant comes and states that he has not filed an affidavit of merits because he is informed that in order to make such affidavit he must truly believe that he has a defence which he is able to establish, and which, when established, is legally sufficient to bar the plaintiffs’ claim. He further states that he is not able…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The action is upon a promissory note; and the defendant moves that he may be allowed to file an answer and defend the action without filing the affidavit required by the Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 45. The alleged ground of the motion is, that the statute is unconstitutional. The articles of the Constitution which the defendant’s counsel refers to are in the Declaration of Rights: Article 1, which declares the right of protecting property; article 10, which declares the right of being protected in the enjoyment of property according to standing laws; article 11, declaring the right of having recourse…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Holmes v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Dwan v. MassareneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Bothwell v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Hanna v. MitchellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Norwood Morris Plan Co. v. McCarthyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.