Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Weinstein v. Miller

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 27, 1925PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarroll, J.

The rescript in Weinstein v. Miller, 249 Mass. 516, ordered that the plaintiff be given leave to amend within thirty days, by setting out the modified contract. By an interlocutory decree dated July 9, 1924, the amendment was allowed. The defendant, the Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, surety on the bond to dissolve the attachment, was notified to appear at the hearing on the allowance of the amendment, by an order of notice obtained by the plaintiff. The bonding company duly appealed from this interlocutory decree allowing the amendment, but took no appeal from the final decree…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Savage v. WelchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  2. Sciola's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  3. Martell v. DoreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  4. Weinstein v. MillerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  5. Driscoll v. HoltMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pizer v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  2. Attorney General v. HenryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  3. Fusaro v. MurrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  4. Bourbeau v. WhittakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  5. Federal National Bank v. O'KeefeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API