Curtiss v. Curtiss

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Curtiss v. Curtiss

66 N.E. 635, 182 Mass. 104, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 956

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 66 N.E. 635 (Curtiss v. Curtiss) 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

Curtiss v. Curtiss, 66 N.E. 635, 182 Mass. 104, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 956 (Mass. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action on a bond given under St. 1888, c. 325, R. L, c. 181, § 6, upon the removal of summary proceedings for the possession of land to the Superior Court upon the ground that the title was concerned. Pub. Sts. c. 155, § 24. R. L. c. 161, § 19. The condition of the bond is to “ pay to the plaintiff, if the final judgment is in his favor, all rent then due, all intervening rent, and all damage and loss which he may sustain by reason of the withholding of the possession of the demanded premises, and by reason of any injury done thereto during such withholding, together with all costs ” etc. At the trial a ruling was asked that the action could not be maintained, on the ground that although a breach of the condition was admitted, it appeared that the plaintiff had no interest in the property but brought the former suit in his own name when acting merely as agent for the owners. The ruling requested was refused, and an exception to the refusal raises the only question before us.

[106]*106Obviously the- defendants are too late for the contention which they seek to make. The judgment contemplated by the bond has been rendered, and having been obtained without fraud conclusively establishes, as between the plaintiff and them, that the principal defendant wrongfully withheld possession from the plaintiff. The defendants cannot retry the merits of that suit. In the request no distinction was made between the principal defendant and the sureties, if any such distinction could be taken. Tracy v. Goodwin, 5 Allen, 409. Way v. Lewis, 115 Mass. 26. Cutter v. Evans, 115 Mass. 27. Glover, appellant, 167 Mass. 280, 283. The exceptions must be overruled if the request was wrong as against even one. But if the wrongful withholding was established the court could not say that there was nothing due on the bond, or turn the plaintiff out of court in the present suit. No question of the measure of damages is before us.

Exceptions overruled,.

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

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action on a bond given under St. 1888, c. 325, R. L, c. 181, § 6, upon the removal of summary proceedings for the possession of land to the Superior Court upon the ground that the title was concerned. Pub. Sts. c. 155, § 24. R. L. c. 161, § 19. The condition of the bond is to “ pay to the plaintiff, if the final judgment is in his favor, all rent then due, all intervening rent, and all damage and loss which he may sustain by reason of the withholding of the possession of the demanded premises, and by reason of any injury done thereto during such withholding, together with all costs ” etc. At the trial a ruling was asked that the action could not be maintained, on the ground that although a breach of the condition was admitted, it appeared that the plaintiff had no interest in the property but brought the former suit in his own name when acting merely as agent for the owners. The ruling requested was refused, and an exception to the refusal raises the only question before us.

[106]*106Obviously the- defendants are too late for the contention which they seek to make. The judgment contemplated by the bond has been rendered, and having been obtained without fraud conclusively establishes, as between the plaintiff and them, that the principal defendant wrongfully withheld possession from the plaintiff. The defendants cannot retry the merits of that suit. In the request no distinction was made between the principal defendant and the sureties, if any such distinction could be taken. Tracy v. Goodwin, 5 Allen, 409. Way v. Lewis, 115 Mass. 26. Cutter v. Evans, 115 Mass. 27. Glover, appellant, 167 Mass. 280, 283. The exceptions must be overruled if the request was wrong as against even one. But if the wrongful withholding was established the court could not say that there was nothing due on the bond, or turn the plaintiff out of court in the present suit. No question of the measure of damages is before us.

Exceptions overruled,.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 N.E. 635, 182 Mass. 104, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtiss-v-curtiss-mass-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack