Harding v. Noyes
125 Mass. 572, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 138
Opinion
The answers, signed and sworn to by the attorney only, did not comply with the requirement of the statute that they should be signed by the plaintiff himself, and upon his oath. Whether a nonsuit should be entered at the expiration of the time previously fixed for answering, or further time I be allowed to obtain proper answers, was exclusively within the ! discretion of the court below. Gen. Sts. c. 129, §§ 46, 48, 49, 56. Townsend v. Gibbs, 11 Cush. 158. Stern v. Filene, 14 Allen, 9. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harding v. Noyes, 125 Mass. 572, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 138 (Mass. 1878).
125 Mass. 572 (Harding v. Noyes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Greaves v. Lacey
12 Mass. App. Dec. 56 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1956)
Carlson Lumber Co. v. Zervas
15 Mass. App. Div. 182 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1950)
Cusolito v. O'Connell
9 Mass. App. Div. 19 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1944)
Fratantonio v. Atlantic Refining Co.
8 N.E.2d 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Henry L. Sawyer Co. v. Boyajian
5 N.E.2d 348 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Gill v. Stretton
1 Mass. App. Div. 408 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)
Spinney v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
73 N.E. 1021 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Fels v. Raymond
28 N.E. 691 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Harding v. Morrill
136 Mass. 291 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)