Legal Opinion

Burlingame v. Bartlett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 22, 1894PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.

The plaintiff filed a bill in equity in the Superior Court for the County of Hampden, to which the defendants demurred; the bill was afterwards amended, and the defendants demurred to the bill as amended, and on November 9, 1893, the demurrer was sustained, and the bill as amended was dismissed with costs, and on the same day the plaintiff appealed; all of which appears in the docket entries of the Superior Court. The plaintiff did not enter this appeal in the Supreme Judicial Court, whereupon, on April 2, 1894, the defendants made application to the Superior Court for an execution for costs.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Priest v. Inhabitants of GrotonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  2. Bentley v. WardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  3. Ingalls v. IngallsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  4. Gray v. GrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. Griffin v. GriffinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  3. Nelson v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  4. Grant v. PizzanoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  5. Clemens Electrical Manufacturing Co. v. WaltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API