Legal Opinion

Rothstein v. Commissioner of Banks

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 7, 1927PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRtjgg, C.J.

This is a bill in equity. The defendant filed what is termed a “Motion to Dismiss.” There is in this Commonwealth no such pleading known to equity practice as a motion to dismiss. Noyes v. Bragg, 220 Mass. 106, 110. Wickwire Spencer Steel Carp. v. United States Spring Co. 247 Mass. 565, 568. Nelson Theatre Co. v. Nelson, 216 Mass. 30, 32. It is provided by G. L. c. 214, § 13: “A defence to a suit in equity shall be made by demurrer, plea or answer.” The practice thus established is recognized and followed in Equity Rules 5, 7 (1926). This is in conformity with general rules of pleading in…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. International Paper Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
  2. Nelson Theatre Co. v. NelsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  3. Sullivan v. RocheMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  4. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  5. Conway v. SextonIllinois Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of LondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  2. Charles I. Hosmer, Inc. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. E. S. Parks Shellac Co. v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  4. Commonwealth v. McHughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  5. Tyler v. Boot & Shoe Workers UnionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933

14 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