Legal Opinion
Swartz v. Clayton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 30, 1951PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpalding, J.
This suit, which is the sequel to Swartz v. Clayton, 325 Mass. 747, is here on the appeal of the defendant Edward Clayton (hereinafter called the defendant) from a final decree establishing his indebtedness in the amount of $900 with interest and costs. The case is in equity because it was commenced by a bill to reach and apply under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 3 (7). The judge made findings of fact and the evidence is reported.
The judge found that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in the sum of $900 exclusive of costs; that the alleged conversation between the defendant…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Goldstein v. BealMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Shulkin v. ShulkinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Westhampton Reservoir Recreation Corp. v. HodderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Cohen v. BaillyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Hill v. Trustees of Glenwood CemeteryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Putnam v. DeRosaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- Turner v. GuyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1974
- First County National Bank v. RoachMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1976
- Guarente v. Sheriff of Suffolk CountyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
- Michael Putnam and Maureen Putnam v. Steven J. Derosa, Etc., Triad Finance Corporation, Michael Putnam and Maureen Putnam v. Steven J. Derosa, Etc., Michael Putnam and Maureen Putnam v. Steven J. Derosa, Etc., Progressive Consumers Federal Credit Union, Michael Putnam and Maureen Putnam v. Steven J. Derosa, Etc., Robert Amirault and Derosa Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992