Legal Opinion

Campbell & Zell Co. v. Barr Pumping Engine Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 25, 1902PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.

Since the decision reported in Homer v. Barr Pumping Fngine Co. 180 Mass. 163, amendments have been allowed substituting the corporation itself for the receiver as the party plaintiff and judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff has been ordered and entered. The case is now here upon the defendant’s appeals from orders disallowing motions to dismiss the action and for an indorser for costs, and from the order for judgment and from the judgment.

No question is raised as to the power of the court to allow the amendments. The principal question is whether after the substitution of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Horne v. MeakinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  2. Whitney v. HoughtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
  3. Fenton v. LordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  4. Denham v. BryantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  5. Peck v. WatersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Pizer v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  2. Sears v. DunbarOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Beers v. McGinnisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
  4. Stockbridge v. MixerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  5. Underhill v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916

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

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

Powered by the Exa API