Brow v. Norton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Brow v. Norton

45 N.E. 933, 167 Mass. 472, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 371

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 26, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 N.E. 933 (Brow v. Norton) 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

Brow v. Norton, 45 N.E. 933, 167 Mass. 472, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 371 (Mass. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, C. J.

The only question of law arising on this appeal is whether the order of the Superior Court was within its power, if that court found the facts to be as alleged in the motion. There can be no doubt that St. 1894, c. 405, confers this power on the court. It is contended that the motion was waived by the filing of an answer. It appears that on April 7,1896, which was Tuesday after the first Monday of April, on which, as we infer, the writ was returnable, the motion was filed, and that afterwards on the 5th day of May an answer was filed, in which it was expressly stated that the defendant did not waive the motion. The filing of such an answer was not a waiver of the motion. The order discontinuing the action with costs must be affirmed.

So ordered.

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

Field, C. J.

The only question of law arising on this appeal is whether the order of the Superior Court was within its power, if that court found the facts to be as alleged in the motion. There can be no doubt that St. 1894, c. 405, confers this power on the court. It is contended that the motion was waived by the filing of an answer. It appears that on April 7,1896, which was Tuesday after the first Monday of April, on which, as we infer, the writ was returnable, the motion was filed, and that afterwards on the 5th day of May an answer was filed, in which it was expressly stated that the defendant did not waive the motion. The filing of such an answer was not a waiver of the motion. The order discontinuing the action with costs must be affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.E. 933, 167 Mass. 472, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brow-v-norton-mass-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack