Goodrich v. Bodurtha
This text of 72 Mass. 323 (Goodrich v. Bodurtha) 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
The plaintiff brought his action upon a judgment of the court of common pleas. That judgment had been recovered upon a joint and several promissory note. While the action upon the judgment was pending, the judgment as to Bodurtha was reversed, upon error, in this court. Bodurtha v. Goodrich, 3 Gray, 508. After the reversal of the judgment, the defendant [324]*324Bodurtha filed an additional answer, setting forth such reversal The plaintiff then had leave to amend his declaration and proceed upon the original note.
To this amended declaration the defendant answered the merger of the note in the judgment. To this the obvious reply was and is that, upon the reversal of the judgment, the merger ceased. It was as if no judgment had been rendered.
We think the learned judge did not violate the fourteenth rule of his court, in allowing the amendment of the declaration without terms.
That rule provides that “ no motion to amend, in matters of substance, shall be allowed after the entry of an action, in any case where the adverse party appears, except upon payment to such adverse party of the amount of the term fee provided in St. 1852, c. 312, § 81, for actions not on the trial list.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 Mass. 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodrich-v-bodurtha-mass-1856.