Wilson v. Head
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contbact, under 'St. 1890, c. 437, § 2, for $12,100 paid on margins. Writ dated August 6, 1898. At the trial in the Superior Court before Pierce, J., the defendants contended that by reason of the enactment of St. 1901, c. 459, re-enacted in R. L. c. 99," §§ 4, 6, the action could not be maintained. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s opening, the judge ruled that as a matter of law the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and ordered a verdict for the defendants.
Read the full summary
Contbact, under 'St. 1890, c. 437, § 2, for $12,100 paid on margins. Writ dated August 6, 1898. At the trial in the Superior Court before Pierce, J., the defendants contended that by reason of the enactment of St. 1901, c. 459, re-enacted in R. L. c. 99," §§ 4, 6, the action could not be maintained. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s opening, the judge ruled that as a matter of law the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and ordered a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff alleged exceptions. For the purpose of the argument of the exceptions, it was agreed that the plaintiff in his…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, C. J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover under the St. 1890, c. 437, for money paid for the purchase of stocks on margin. In the opening of his case at the trial he stated and offered to prove facts which would entitle him to a verdict under that statute, were it not for the enactment of the amendatory act of 1901, c. 459.
The question before us is, What is the effect of the amendments contained in the later statute ? The first section of the St. 1901 is as follows: “ Section two of chapter four hundred and thirty-seven of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and ninety is hereby amended by striking…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Steamship Co. v. JoliffeSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Louisiana Ex Rel. Folsom v. Mayor and Administrators of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Bartlet v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Bear Lake & River Water Works & Irrigation Co. v. GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- National Carloading Corp. v. Phoenix-El Paso Express, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1943
- Adams v. DickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Devine's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Pittsley v. DavidMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Moss v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.