Legal Opinion
Borst v. Young
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 10, 1939PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
The findings of the judge show these facts. The defendant Young owed the plaintiff $1,271.08, for which demand was made on July 10, 1920. This bill to reach and apply shares of stock in payment of the debt was filed on February 26, 1926. Early in June, 1928, the clerk marked the case inactive under Common Law Rule 62 of the Superior Court (1923), as amended on April 22, 1926, which applied to suits in equity as well as to actions at law. That rule resembled, but was not identical with, the present rule, Rule 85 of the Superior Court (1932). Under that rule, a case remaining on the docket for…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Long v. GeorgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Graustein v. DolanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Sullivan v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Ratner v. HillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Carilli v. HerseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Winchell v. Plywood Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc. v. MacNeil Bros. Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Noyes v. SheaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.