Inhabitants of Clinton v. Heagney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon a bond given by the defendant Heagney as treasurer and collector to the inhabitants of Clinton. The other defendants are sureties upon the bond.
Read the full summary
Contract, upon a bond given by the defendant Heagney as treasurer and collector to the inhabitants of Clinton. The other defendants are sureties upon the bond. The writ was dated November 15,1897, and was duly entered upon the first Monday of January, 1898. At the trial in the Superior Court, before HopJcins, J., the defendants, who appeared specially, excepted in writing to the right of the attorney who entered the action to appear for the plaintiff, and demanded his authority thus to appear; and the attorney did not declare that he was duly authorized to appear by an application made to him…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
As applied to proceedings upon the civil side of a court the ordinary meaning of the, word “ prosecution ” includes the institution of a suit, and is not confined to the mere pursuit of a remedy after proceedings have been instituted. That Clinton is a large and populous town, with more than twenty-four hundred legal voters, who could not be.warned and assembled in town meeting without expense and great loss of time whenever it might be necessary for the town to prosecute its rights in court, is matter of common knowledge, which tends to confirm the view that when by an elaborate chapter of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Eastman Marble Co. v. Vermont Marble Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Davis v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Inhabitants of Great Barrington v. GibbonsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Cheshire v. Des Moines City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Gray v. DahlMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.