Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The first of these suits was a bill in equity alleging that the Stockbridge Iron Company conveyed land to the Hudson Iron Company, by deed reserving to themselves certain rights of taking ore for their use, and that the Hudson Iron Company obstructed them in the exercise of these reserved rights.
Read the full summary
The first of these suits was a bill in equity alleging that the Stockbridge Iron Company conveyed land to the Hudson Iron Company, by deed reserving to themselves certain rights of taking ore for their use, and that the Hudson Iron Company obstructed them in the exercise of these reserved rights. The second suit was a cross bill by the Hudson Iron Company, alleging that the language of the reservation in the deed of the Stockbridge Iron Company to them was inserted in the deed by the common mistake of all parties thereto, and defeated the intention of all said parties, which was, that said…
1Opinion of the Court
Chapman C. J.*
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree, denying the motion by the Hudson Iron Company, that an issue be framed. to be tried by a jury. It is contended by the counsel of the Stockbridge Iron Company that the motion was addressed to the discretion of the justice, and that no appeal lies from his ruling. The cases of Ward v. Hill, 4 Gray, 598, and Crittenden v. Field, 8 Gray, 621, are cited to sustain this position. But those decisions were made before the existence of the provision of the Gen. Sts. c. 113, § 10. It was held in Wright v. Wright, 13 Allen, 207, that this…
2Cited by42 opinions
- Griswold v. HazardSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Parker v. SimpsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Ely v. . EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Citizens' National Bank v. JudyIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.