Legal Opinion
Norcross v. Haskell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 28, 1925PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.
This action of contract was referred to an auditor. He filed a report in favor of the defendant. The defendant filed a motion that judgment be entered in his favor in accordance with the auditor’s report. This motion manifestly was framed upon Rule 30 of the Superior Court (1923), the material part of which is in these words: “ On the coming in of the auditor’s report, either party may move for entry of judgment according to said report; and the court, thereupon, shall order such judgment to be entered, unless, within a time stated, cause appears or is shown to the contrary. If cause appears…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Samuel v. Page-Storms Drop Forge Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Savage v. WelchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Farnham v. Lenox Motor Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Parker v. Lewis J. Bird Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Sherry v. LittlefieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Johnson v. CarrollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Gechijian v. Richmond InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Lovell v. Commonwealth Thread Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Cheraska v. OhanasianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Union Trust Co. v. MagenisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.