Anderson v. Froderman
This text of 282 N.E.2d 893 (Anderson v. Froderman) 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.
Opinion
In this suit in equity the docket discloses that following the assignment of the matter for trial the plaintiff was given notice under S.J.C. Rule 3:15, 351 Mass. 798, that his deposition was to be taken at an appointed time and place. He failed to appear. The defendants moved to dismiss, and at the hearing on the motion the plaintiff admitted “that he had been served with a notice relative to the taking of a deposition and further . . . [stated] in open court that he would not obey the notice and would not permit his deposition to be taken.” Upon this, the motion to dismiss was allowed. S.J.C. Rule 3:15, § 8 (c), 351 Mass. 798, 811. There was no error in the final decree dismissing the bill with costs.
Decree affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
282 N.E.2d 893, 361 Mass. 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-froderman-mass-1972.