Scott v. Shears
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in the court of common pleas, to recover of the defendant the value of work and labor done and performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, as stated in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. The case was referred to an auditor. At the hearing before the auditor, the plaintiff offered his book with his oath, to support his bill of particulars.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in the court of common pleas, to recover of the defendant the value of work and labor done and performed by the plaintiff for the defendant, as stated in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. The case was referred to an auditor. At the hearing before the auditor, the plaintiff offered his book with his oath, to support his bill of particulars. Upon inspection of the book, it appeared that the charges which the plaintiff proposed to prove in support of his bill of particulars, were there charged against- Samuel Shears 2d, the defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The only question of law in this case is, whether, in a suit against one, proof may be given of a debt due to the plaintiff from him and another jointly. Of this there is no doubt. A debt due from two is due from each in solido, and each is liable for it, and each is presumed in law to know it. If the other joint debtor is-living, not dischargee! in insolvency or otherwise, and within reach of process, th& defendant should have pleaded the non-joinder in abatement If the defendant was actually surprised by the proof of a join! debt, he should have asked for time. Exceptions…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Morgan v. BrachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908