Legal Opinion

McGrath v. Sullivan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 7, 1939PublishedCited by 16 opinions

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

  1. Lake v. Atlantic WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
  2. Foye v. PatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  3. Charles I. Hosmer, Inc. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  4. Mulchey v. Methodist Religious SocietyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
  5. Feneff v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  2. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
  3. Payton v. Abbott LabsDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1981
  4. Gordon v. ParkerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1949
  5. Elfman v. GlaserMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

11 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