Legal Opinion
Conly v. Conly
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 10, 1877PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Tort for malicious prosecution. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions to certain rulings of the judge. The defendant afterwards died, and his administratrix appeared and moved to dismiss the action, on the ground that it did not survive.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It is useless to consider the merits of the plaintiff’s exceptions, because, if they should be sustained, the action could not be further prosecuted, having been abated by the defendant’s death since the exceptions were allowed. Gen. Sts. e. 127, § 1. Nettleton v. Dinehart, 5 Cush. 543. Cummings v. Bird, 115 Mass. 346. Action dismissed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cummings v. BirdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rosenblum v. GinisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Denslow v. HutchinsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1910
- Shedd v. PattersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1923