Kittredge v. Martin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Conte ACT upon a judgment recovered by the plaintiff, on December 11,1884, as of July 14,1883, in the Superior Court, in an action against the present defendant upon a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Conte ACT upon a judgment recovered by the plaintiff, on December 11,1884, as of July 14,1883, in the Superior Court, in an action against the present defendant upon a promissory note. Trial in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows : In the writ in the original action, the defendant was described as of Wolf borough, in the State of New Hampshire, and Nathaniel T. Rhodes, of Boston, in this Commonwealth, was directed to be summoned as trustee. The officer’s return upon the writ stated that he “summoned the within-named Nathaniel T.…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
All the grounds upon which the defendant objects to the validity of the judgment upon which the action is brought are proper matters to be assigned for error in a writ of error upon the judgment; and are not matters to be averred and proved in defence of an action upon a domestic judgment.
The precise point is decided in McCormick v. Fiske, 138 Mass. 379, which cannot be distinguished from the case at bar.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCormick v. FiskeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
3Cited by8 opinions
- Eliot v. McCormickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Boston Acme Mines Development Co. v. ClawsonUtah Supreme Court · 1925
- Sherman v. HannoSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. PedersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- McCann v. JeanIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.