Legal Opinion

Barry v. Dudley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 1, 1933PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.

The plaintiff, the assignee of a mortgage given by the defendant, on April 13, 1932, made an entry *259on the premises for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgage, sold the premises to herself at a foreclosure sale under the power in the mortgage, and gave to herself a foreclosure deed which was duly recorded. The regularity of these proceedings is not challenged. On April 27, 1932, she brought this writ of summary process under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 239, § 1, to obtain possession of the premises, which have been in the possession of the defendant mortgagor ever since the mortgage was given on…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hood v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
  2. Brooks v. BennettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  3. Pilok v. BednarskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  4. Antonellis v. WeinsteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  5. Goldman v. DamonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Sheehan Construction Co. v. DudleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  2. Sheehan Construction Co. v. DudleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  3. Davis v. Newburyport Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  4. Schanberg v. Automobile Insurance Co. of HartfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank v. WhiteDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939

8 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