Soper v. Manning
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition on the Pub. Sts. c. 187, §§ 17, 19, to vacate a judgment of the Superior Court obtained by the respondent against the'petitioner on default. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brahy, J., the respondent contended, and asked the court to rule, that the petition was insufficient in form. The court refused so to rule, and the respondent excepted.
Read the full summary
Petition on the Pub. Sts. c. 187, §§ 17, 19, to vacate a judgment of the Superior Court obtained by the respondent against the'petitioner on default. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brahy, J., the respondent contended, and asked the court to rule, that the petition was insufficient in form. The court refused so to rule, and the respondent excepted. It appeared that the petitioner, Soper, was sued jointly and severally with four other persons, by a writ in favor of the respondent, dated May 18,1888, issuing out of the Superior Court. All of the defendants except the petitioner…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This is not a writ of review, but the summary proceeding to set aside a judgment in an action in which “the *384execution has not been satisfied in whole or in part,” given by Pub. Sts. c. 187, §§ 17-19. Skillings v. Massachusetts Benefit Association, 151 Mass. 321, 322. This fact makes a part of the respondent’s argument, based on the sections and decisions relating to writs of review, inapplicable.
1. The first exception is to the refusal of a general request to rule that the petition was insufficient in form. No particular defect was pointed out, and such a request is entitled to no more…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Windram v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- City of Boston v. RobbinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Hayes v. CollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Capron v. AnnessMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Russell v. FoleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Rollins v. Bay View Auto Parts Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Maker v. BouthierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Daddario v. City of PittsfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.