Legal Opinion
Meskell v. Meskell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 6, 1969PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
From interlocutory decrees sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s bill and denying his motion to amend, the plaintiff appealed. He also appealed from the final decree dismissing his bill.
The demurrer set forth the following grounds: (1) the bill did not state a case for equitable relief; (2) the allegations do not disclose with clearness the case intended to be set forth; and (3) the plaintiff was guilty of loches. Although the judge sustained the demurrer on the first two grounds, all three are open on appeal. Ratté v. Forand, 299 Mass. 185, 187. Arena v. Erler, 300 Mass.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Samia v. Central Oil Co. of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- Howe v. HoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Barry v. CovichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- Quinn v. QuinnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Comstock v. LivingstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Johnston v. Holiday Inns, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1979
- Markell v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
- Fortin v. Roman Catholic BishopMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Maffei v. Roman Catholic ArchbishopMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
- Carpenter v. Suffolk Franklin Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.