Graef v. Bernard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, on an account annexed. Writ dated June 27, 1893. The answer was: 1. A general denial. 2. That the plaintiff should prove the sale and delivery of the goods as set forth in his declaration. 3. That the plaintiff had since the bringing of the action recovered judgment in the State of New York, on July 17, 1893, for a certain sum, which judgment was for the same cause of action as that set forth in the plaintiff’s declaration, and for the same goods as those therein…
Read the full summary
Contract, on an account annexed. Writ dated June 27, 1893. The answer was: 1. A general denial. 2. That the plaintiff should prove the sale and delivery of the goods as set forth in his declaration. 3. That the plaintiff had since the bringing of the action recovered judgment in the State of New York, on July 17, 1893, for a certain sum, which judgment was for the same cause of action as that set forth in the plaintiff’s declaration, and for the same goods as those therein alleged to have been sold to the defendant, and that the judgment was still in force. At the trial in the Superior Court,…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The rights of parties are generally determined as of the time when the action is begun. And it is necessary that it should be so. That the rule is not an invariable one, however, is shown by the numerous instances in which, by the plea of puis darrein continuance, facts occurring after the commencement of the action are set up and allowed to operate in bar of it. And it is expressly provided by Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 26, that “ an answer or replication may allege facts which have occurred since the institution of the suit.” If a declaration, answer, or replication has been filed, a supplemental…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Friedenwald Co. v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Drake Ex Rel. Imes v. Kansas City Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Yore v. City of NewtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Shore v. ShoreSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1924
- Hochstein v. James W. Hill Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1915