Legal Opinion
Ray
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided June 28, 1943PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in the action. After a verdict in his favor, but before the entry of judgment, he caused the real estate of the defendant to be attached by special precept. Thereafter one Margaret M. Pierce filed an application alleging that a certain described parcel of land, “standing in the name of” the defendant and included in the attachment, belonged to said Pierce, and that the_ defendant had no interest therein, and praying that the attachment of said property be dissolved. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 223, § 114, as amended. The exceptions which the petitioner seeks to…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Frati v. JanniniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. English Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Morse v. WoodworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Graustein v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SharpeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Lasell v. Director of the Division of Employment SecurityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Scaccia v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Burns v. MelnickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Nealon v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.