Katz v. Wills

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Katz v. Wills

1 Mass. App. Div. 624

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedDecember 30, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Mass. App. Div. 624 (Katz v. Wills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Katz v. Wills, 1 Mass. App. Div. 624 (Mass. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Bolster, C. J.

This is an action for a balance alleged to be dne upon a promissory note for $200. The defendant’s answer was a general denial. The plaintiff took ont an order for further particulars and the defendant in reply thereto set up a denial of signature and the Statute of Limitations. The defendant did not ask leave to amend his answer. The matter comes here solely on the refusal of a ruling requested by the defendant, — that the plaintiff cannot recover because the statute barred the action.

The purpose of the rule is to particularize issues already joined, not to enlarge those issues. If the statute had been seasonably pleaded, the plaintiff might perhaps have escaped its bar on one of several grounds. Its not being well pleaded, no evidence of that sort was necessary.

Report dismissed.

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

Bolster, C. J.

This is an action for a balance alleged to be dne upon a promissory note for $200. The defendant’s answer was a general denial. The plaintiff took ont an order for further particulars and the defendant in reply thereto set up a denial of signature and the Statute of Limitations. The defendant did not ask leave to amend his answer. The matter comes here solely on the refusal of a ruling requested by the defendant, — that the plaintiff cannot recover because the statute barred the action.

The purpose of the rule is to particularize issues already joined, not to enlarge those issues. If the statute had been seasonably pleaded, the plaintiff might perhaps have escaped its bar on one of several grounds. Its not being well pleaded, no evidence of that sort was necessary.

Report dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Mass. App. Div. 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-wills-massdistctapp-1936.