Ames v. Stevens

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ames v. Stevens

120 Mass. 218

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 5, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 Mass. 218 (Ames v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ames v. Stevens, 120 Mass. 218 (Mass. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Bv the Court.

Both counts are common counts in contract, the one upon an account annexed, and the other for money had and received. The words in the writ, “ with count in tort,” no such count having been filed, are mere surplusage. The submission to arbitration by rule of court was a waiver of all defects in the pleadings. The appeal is frivolous. But the plaintiff’s motion for double costs cannot be granted, because the statute upon that subject is limited to exceptions, and does not extend to appeals. Gen. Sts. c. 112, § 13. Delaney v. Towns, 1 Allen, 407. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bv the Court.

Both counts are common counts in contract, the one upon an account annexed, and the other for money had and received. The words in the writ, “ with count in tort,” no such count having been filed, are mere surplusage. The submission to arbitration by rule of court was a waiver of all defects in the pleadings. The appeal is frivolous. But the plaintiff’s motion for double costs cannot be granted, because the statute upon that subject is limited to exceptions, and does not extend to appeals. Gen. Sts. c. 112, § 13. Delaney v. Towns, 1 Allen, 407. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 Mass. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ames-v-stevens-mass-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack