Holbrook v. Pratt
1 Mass. 96
Opinion
(Dana, C. J., Strong, and Thacher, justices) gave no opinion as to the second exception; but they held the first to be fatal.
Declaration quashed.
It has since been unanimously decided, and the- opinion of the Court elaborately given by Parsons, C. J., that quod, cum, is bad in trespass only upon special demurrer; post, vol. ii. 358, Coffin vs. Coffin.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holbrook v. Pratt, 1 Mass. 96 (Mass. 1804).
1 Mass. 96 (Holbrook v. Pratt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.
20 N.E.2d 465 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Potter v. Titcomb
7 Me. 302 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1831)
Bullard v. President of the Nantucket Bank
5 Mass. 99 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1809)
Perkins v. Burbank
2 Mass. 81 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1806)
Bogart v. M'Donald
2 Johns. Cas. 219 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)