McGrath v. Sullivan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
The declaration in the action of tort against Sullivan only, numbered 327782 in the Superior Court, con*328tained five counts. The defendant filed what he called a “plea in abatement,” which set up as to the first three counts that they were barred by a former judgment in an action between the same parties, numbered 319916. Of course that was really not matter in abatement, but in bar, and under the practice act could not properly be set up by plea, for pleas in bar in actions at law have long since been abolished. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 22. Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105, 109, 110. Gallo v.…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Lake v. Atlantic WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Foye v. PatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Charles I. Hosmer, Inc. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Mulchey v. Methodist Religious SocietyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Feneff v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
- Payton v. Abbott LabsDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1981
- Gordon v. ParkerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1949
- Elfman v. GlaserMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.