Caldwell v. Harding
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
At law. Assumpsit [by William A. Caldwell against David J. Harding and others, administrators] for moneys received by the defendant’s intestate to the use of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
At law. Assumpsit [by William A. Caldwell against David J. Harding and others, administrators] for moneys received by the defendant’s intestate to the use of the plaintiff. Most of the facts were agreed; but when the cause came on to be heard by the court, it was found that the agreement left certain matters to be decided by the court upon the written evidence, and lest the parties might be embarrassed in taking a writ of error if they should desire it, they filed a stipulation, by suggestion of the court, waiving a jury trial, in accordance with the act of March 3, 1865, § 4 (13 Stat. 501).…
1Opinion of the Court
LOWELL, District Judge.
The first de-fence taken in this case is the statute of limitations of Massachusetts, which requires actions against administrators to be brought within two years after they have given bond (Gen. St. c. 97, § 5). The seventh section of the same statute provides that, if an action is brought in due season, and is abated or defeated in consequence of any defect, &c., or of a mistake in the form of proceeding, the plaintiff may commence a new action for the same cause within one year after the determination of the original suit. In deciding whether the former action…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gaines v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Sorensen v. the Overland CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1956
- L. R., M. R. & T. Ry. v. ManeesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Granahan v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.