Gilman v. American Producers' Controlling Co.

62 N.E. 267, 180 Mass. 319, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1078
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 3, 1902·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Loring, J.

1. The assignments of these claims to the plaintiff, in each case, gave him the right to bring the action in his own name. St. 1897, c. 402, § 1. This right wras not abridged by the insertion in the assignment of a permission to bring suit in the name of the assignor.

2. In each case the aggregate damages demanded by the plaintiff on all the counts exceed in amount $1,000; this brings the ease within Pub. Sts. c. 150, § 5, defining the jurisdiction of this court in Norfolk County. There is no reason why a plaintiff should not secure the amount necessary to [321]*321give this court jurisdiction by adding together the damages demanded in the several counts; the right to insert any number of counts for different causes of action is expressly given by the practice act. St. 1852, c. 312, § 2. Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 2. Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 2. And before St. 1897, c. 402, a plaintiff could include in one declaration several negotiable notes made by one person, originally payable to different payees, all of which had been indorsed to him. We see no reason for holding that the assignee of a common law chose in action has not the same privilege since the enactment of St. 1897, c. 402.

Oases to be sent to an assessor to assess the damages.

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

Gilman v. American Producers' Controlling Co., 62 N.E. 267, 180 Mass. 319, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1078 (Mass. 1902).

62 N.E. 267 (Gilman v. American Producers' Controlling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Westminster National Bank v. Boston & Maine Railroad
139 N.E. 345 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Bryne v. Dorey
109 N.E. 146 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Andrews v. Tuttle-Smith Co.
78 N.E. 99 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)