Harding v. Morrill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, brought for the benefit of the plaintiff’s attorney. In the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., the plaintiff was non-suited for failure to answer certain interrogatories filed by the defendant; and alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
Our statutes give to the defendant the right to file interrogatories for the discovery of facts material to the defence of the suit, to be answered on oath by the plaintiff. The fact that the suit is brought for the benefit of a third person does not deprive the defendant of this right. Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 49. Harding v. Noyes, 125 Mass. 572.
In the case at bar, the defendant filed interrogatories to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff wholly neglected to answer; and, at December term, 1882, the Superior Court overruled the plaintiff’s motion for further time to answer the interrogatories, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harding v. NoyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
3Cited by10 opinions
- Nickerson v. GlinesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Curley v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Cassiday Fork Boom & Lumber Co. v. TerryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1911
- Spinney v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Fels v. RaymondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.