Bahmann & Co. v. Potter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of an iron safe. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the plaintiff, described in the writ as an incorporated stock company, put in no evidence of its incorporation ; and the judge ruled that it was unnecessary under the pleadings to prove its incorporation. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The pleadings appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
At common law, the objection that the plaintiff, suing as a corporation, was in fact not a corporation (and therefore incapable of maintaining any action) was not mere matter of abatement, but might be pleaded in bar. And under the St. of 1836, c. 273, by which the general issue was required to be pleaded in all cases, with a specification, according to the rules of court, of the matters intended to be given in evidence, this defence might be specified under the general issue, and, although it would be waived if not specified, was treated by the *90court as duly presented by a specification of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Davis v. TravisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Glackan v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Vanbuskirk v. LevyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Gott v. Adams Express Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Hungerford National Bank v. NostrandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by3 opinions
- Amsinck v. American InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Williamsburg City Fire Insurance v. FrothinghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Goodwin Invalid Bedstead Co. v. DarlingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882