East Tennessee Land Co. v. Leeson
This text of 59 N.E. 639 (East Tennessee Land Co. v. Leeson) 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.
Opinion
It is too plain for discussion that the allowance of the amendment did not entitle the defendants to treat the suit as begun at the time it was made.' Since the amendment the receiver is dominus litis, as he was before it was made, and the suit is being prosecuted for those who, by decree of the court appointing the receiver, are entitled to the proceeds, and for whose benefit it was originally brought. The substitution of the company for • the receiver as the party plaintiff was made to comply with the technicalities of our procedure. Such an amendment can be allowed to prevent the defence of the statute being set up to a new suit. Costelo v. Crowell, 134 Mass. 280.
Order disallowing amendment to answer affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
59 N.E. 639, 178 Mass. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-tennessee-land-co-v-leeson-mass-1901.