Benthall v. Hildreth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Benthall v. Hildreth

68 Mass. 288

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 68 Mass. 288 (Benthall v. Hildreth) 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

Benthall v. Hildreth, 68 Mass. 288 (Mass. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Metcalf, J.

The matter of the defendant’s answer might have been pleaded in abatement; but the defendant was not bound so to plead it, and may well rely upon it, in his answer, as a bar to the action. Com. Dig. Abatement, G. 6; Action, E. 1. Gould Pl. c. 5, § 138. The plaintiff cannot therefore object that the answer was filed too late. When a party has an option to plead a matter in abatement or in bar, and elects to plead in bar, he is entitled to all the incidents of such plea, in the same manner as if a plea in bar only were admissible.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Metcalf, J.

The matter of the defendant’s answer might have been pleaded in abatement; but the defendant was not bound so to plead it, and may well rely upon it, in his answer, as a bar to the action. Com. Dig. Abatement, G. 6; Action, E. 1. Gould Pl. c. 5, § 138. The plaintiff cannot therefore object that the answer was filed too late. When a party has an option to plead a matter in abatement or in bar, and elects to plead in bar, he is entitled to all the incidents of such plea, in the same manner as if a plea in bar only were admissible.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 Mass. 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benthall-v-hildreth-mass-1854.