Legal Opinion

Hunneman v. Phelps

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 5, 1911PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKeowltoe, C. J.

The question before us arises upon a motion of a deputy sheriff to amend his return upon an execution.* *440The power of the court to allow an amendment to such a return, for the purpose of making the return conform to the truth, is well established, and is not questioned in this case. Bayley, petitioner, 132 Mass. 457. Sawyer v. Harmon, 136 Mass. 414. Frazee v. Nelson, 179 Mass. 456, 461. The contention of the defendant is that there was no evidence to warrant the judge * in finding, as a fact, that the levy was made as stated in the proposed amendment.

W B. Luther, for the plaintiff. A. L.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Frazee v. NelsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
  2. Finnell v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
  3. BayleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  4. Hunneman v. Lowell Institution for SavingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  5. Sawyer v. HarmonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Blake v. RogersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  2. McGrath v. Worcester County National BankMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
  3. Marble v. BloomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  4. Hunneman v. Lowell Institution for SavingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API