Young v. Providence & Stonington Steamship Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action in which the writ, which was dated December 15, 1888, described the defendant as “ the Providence and Stoning-ton Steamship Company, a corporation duly organized and established by law, and having its usual place of business in Boston, in the county of Suffolk.” The officer’s return upon the writ was as follows : “ Suffolk, ss.
Read the full summary
Action in which the writ, which was dated December 15, 1888, described the defendant as “ the Providence and Stoning-ton Steamship Company, a corporation duly organized and established by law, and having its usual place of business in Boston, in the county of Suffolk.” The officer’s return upon the writ was as follows : “ Suffolk, ss. Boston, December 19, 1888. By virtue of this writ, I this day attached a chip as the property of the within named defendant corporation, and summoned it to appear and answer at court, by delivering to Joshua W. Richardson, as its agent, in hand a summons,…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
We think that the judgment must be taken to be a judgment upon the plea in abatement. The motion to dismiss was for the alleged defect in the writ, that it did not show whether the law under which the defendant was organized was a law of this Commonwealth, and for the alleged defect in the return of service, that it did not show that the person upon whom the writ was served as the agent of the defendant was in fact such agent. Afterwards, the defendant, in its answer, put in issue upon the record the fact that it was a foreign corporation, and that the person was not its agent. The case was…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Folger v. Columbian InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Tingley v. BatemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Lawrence v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- National Bank of Commerce v. HuntingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Gardner v. BarkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- United Drug Co. v. CordleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Krinsky v. Stevens Coal Sales Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Guild v. BonnemortMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Wright v. GrausteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Burrows v. MortonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.