Inhabitants of Braintree v. Inhabitants of Hingham

17 Mass. 431
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1821·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Curia.

The plea in bar is insufficient. The facts stated in it arose inter alios. None are estopped by deed or by pleadings, but parties and privies; and none others can take advantage of an estoppel. The defendants are strangers to the record in the former suit. If the plaintiffs have heretofore made a mistake in calling upon a town not liable, this furnishes no reason why they should not be permitted to call on another town, whom they ha\e since discovered to be legally answerable.

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

Inhabitants of Braintree v. Inhabitants of Hingham, 17 Mass. 431 (Mass. 1821).

17 Mass. 431 (Inhabitants of Braintree v. Inhabitants of Hingham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

County of Merrimack v. Derry
219 A.2d 703 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1966)