Cahill v. Campbell

105 Mass. 40
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Colt, J.

The judge ruled, as matter of law, that the certificate, by which the plaintiff, intending to do business on her separate account, sought to protect her property, under the St. of 1862, a. 198, from the claims of creditors of her husband, was invalid on its face. It is objected to this certificate, that the nature of the business proposed to be done is not sufficiently set out.- But it is described as “ the general business of saloon keeper; ” and we cannot see, as matter of law, that these words are not sufficiently descriptive and definite, when applied to such a business, carried on in a country town or village. The description would seem to be quite as intelligible to the jury as the words grocer, innkeeper, storekeeper, and the like, and the certificate is not to be held insufficient in law for this reason. Exceptions sustained.

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

Cahill v. Campbell, 105 Mass. 40 (Mass. 1870).

105 Mass. 40 (Cahill v. Campbell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mason v. Bowles
117 Mass. 86 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)
Long v. Drew
114 Mass. 77 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873)
Harriman v. Gray
108 Mass. 229 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1871)