Wilson v. Hatfield
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a judgment recovered by the plaintiff in the Superior Court. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the plaintiff put in evidence the docket record of the proceedings in the action in which the judgment was recovered, and also the papers in the case, the record not having been extended.
Read the full summary
Contract on a judgment recovered by the plaintiff in the Superior Court. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the plaintiff put in evidence the docket record of the proceedings in the action in which the judgment was recovered, and also the papers in the case, the record not having been extended. It appeared that execution had been issued on the judgment, but not returned into court; but there was no evidence introduced by the plaintiff to show what had been done by virtue of the execution, or of any proceedings thereon, nor was any evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The defendants not having pleaded payment or satisfaction, nor appearing to have offered any evidence thereof, the ruling below that the plaintiff could not recover in this action (which is evidently not a finding or conclusion of fact, but a decision that the plaintiff could not recover as matter of law) was erroneous. O'Neal v. Kittredge, 3 Allen, 470. Linton v. Hurley, 114 Mass. 76. Exceptions sustained.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Linton v. HurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
3Cited by5 opinions
- American Railway Express Co. v. F. S. Royster Guano Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1925
- Bruce v. AndersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Eldredge v. AultmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
- Morse v. PearlSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
- Smith v. CondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899