Legal Opinion
Handy v. Miner
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided December 23, 1926PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, J.
On March 28, 1919, by a stipulation filed in court, the parties to the above entitled actions or suits agreed that the bill of complaint entitled William H. Miner v. Herbert L. Handy et al. should be considered “as a separate cross bill” in the bill of complaint of Herbert L. Handy v. William H. Miner et al., and “that all the issues therein may be determined as in one action.” Since the master’s report was filed, the legal name of the 'defendant W. H. Miner Chocolate Company has been changed to the “Handy Chocolate Company.”
The suit of Handy v. Miner is a bill to reach and apply certain…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lumiansky v. TessierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Day v. HolmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Tibbetts v. WentworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Levi L. Brown Paper Co. v. DeanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Bond v. Mount Hope Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Refrigeration Discount Corp. v. CatinoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
- Rock-Ola Manufacturing Corp. v. Music & Television Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- George v. Coolidge Bank and Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Coe v. WareMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Ahern v. TowleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.