Coolidge v. Cary
14 Mass. 115
Opinion
After the default of the defendant, judgment goes, of course, unless there be good reason for postponing it, as where there is a prior attachment of property. There is no sufficient reason for delay in the present case.
Let judgment he entered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Coolidge v. Cary, 14 Mass. 115 (Mass. 1817).
14 Mass. 115 (Coolidge v. Cary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Blatchford v. Goularte
11 Mass. App. Div. 281 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1946)
Wright v. Burbee
22 A.2d 494 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1941)
Dalton-Ingersoll Co. v. Fiske
55 N.E. 468 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Bailey v. Edmundson
46 N.E. 1064 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
New-Hampshire Strafford Bank v. Cornell
2 N.H. 324 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1821)
Champion v. Noyes
2 Mass. 481 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807)