Hamilton v. Ingraham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. The writ, issued from a District Court, was dated August 18, 1875, returnable on the “thirtieth day of August next.” The defendant entered a special appearance and filed a plea to the jurisdiction, on the ground “ that the writ was not made returnable within the time required by law.”
Read the full summary
Contract. The writ, issued from a District Court, was dated August 18, 1875, returnable on the “thirtieth day of August next.” The defendant entered a special appearance and filed a plea to the jurisdiction, on the ground “ that the writ was not made returnable within the time required by law.” The justice overruled the defendant’s plea, and allowed a motion of the plaintiff to amend his writ by substituting the word “ current ” for the word “ next,” and ordered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, and there filed a motion to dismiss the action, which was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The mistake in the writ was rightly allowed to be amended. McIniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray, 600. Fay v. Hayden,, 7 Gray, 41. Hart v. Waitt, 3 Allen, 532. Austin v. Lamar Ins. Co. 108 Mass. 338. Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Austin v. Lamar Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by7 opinions
- Barker Co. v. Central West Investment Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1905
- Moriarty v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- O'Brien v. McManamaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Inhabitants of Dover-Foxcroft v. Inhabitants of LincolnSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1937
- Norton v. City of DoverUnited States Circuit Court · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.