Suter v. Matthews
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity. The case was heard by Ames, J., who ruled that the bill could not be maintained for the reason that the plaintiff had a plain and adequate remedy at law, and reserved this question for the consideration of the full court, and also the question whether upon the evidence the bill could be maintained. The nature of the case appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
The plaintiff’s bill alleges that he has paid the defendant certain sums of money, has given to the defendant his promissory note for §25,000, and deposited as security therefor *254certain certificates of shares of corporate railroad stock ; that all these have been obtained from him under the pretence and representation that the defendant had, at the plaintiff’s request, purchased for him five hundred shares of stock in the Boston Water Power Co., had advanced the commissions and purchase money for the same, and was carrying the stock for the accommodation of the plaintiff ; and that such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Milkman v. OrdwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by8 opinions
- Parkway, Inc. v. United States Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Shenehon v. Illinois Life InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902
- Chamberlain v. JamesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Frue v. LoringMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Diamond Financial, LLCMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.