Kempton v. Burgess

136 Mass. 192, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 207
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedDecember 4, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 136 Mass. 192 (Kempton v. Burgess) 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.

Bluebook
Kempton v. Burgess, 136 Mass. 192, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 207 (Mass. 1883).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

In actions at law, the right of a plaintiff to become nonsuit, or to discontinue at any time before a trial is begun, is undoubted. Burbank v. Woodward, 124 Mass. 357. The same rule, in substance, prevails in suits in equity in which the plaintiff brings the bill for his sole benefit and no other person is interested in its maintenance.

In such cases, it is a matter of course to permit a plaintiff to dismiss his bill at any time before a hearing, upon payment of the costs. 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 790—792. Burras v. Looker, 4 Paige, 227. Cummins v. Bennett, 8 Paige, 79. Such an order of dismissal is in the nature of a nonsuit at law. [193]*193and is not a bar to another bill. If, at the time of the hearing, a plaintiff in equity is not ready to go on, and the court refuses to grant further time, he may move for an order dismissing his bill, which should be granted upon payment of the costs; if he does not do so, the defendant is not entitled to a decree upon the merits, but can only have the bill dismissed for want of prosecution ; and such a dismissal, like a dismissal upon the plaintiff’s motion, is not a bar to a new bill. Story Eq. Pl. § 793. Foote v. Gibbs, 1 Gray, 412. When a bill is dismissed upon the motion of the plaintiff, it is a safe and convenient practice, and we think it is our usual practice, to dismiss it without prejudice. Bigelow v. Winsor, 1 Gray, 299, 301.

In the case before us, the plaintiff moved “ for leave to enter a discontinuance.” This was informal, but it is equivalent to, and may be treated as, a notice for an order dismissing his bill.

It may be doubtful whether the decree passed in this case would operate as a bar to a new bill; but we are of opinion that, in, order to save any question as to its effect, and fully to preserve the rights of the plaintiff, it should be modified so as to stand as a decree dismissing the bill without prejudice, and with costs.

Decree accordingly.

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

Related

Pettinella v. City of Worcester
245 N.E.2d 451 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1969)
Verdone v. Verdone
187 N.E.2d 853 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1963)
Newman v. Secretary of the Commonwealth
162 N.E.2d 291 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
City of Haverhill v. DiBurro
148 N.E.2d 642 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Boyle v. Building Inspector of Malden
99 N.E.2d 925 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
People Ex Rel. Waite v. Bristow
62 N.E.2d 545 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1945)
Greenville Banking & Trust Co. v. Selcow
25 F.2d 78 (Third Circuit, 1928)
Bolton v. Van Heusen
249 Mass. 503 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Bullivant v. First National Bank
246 Mass. 324 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Keown v. Keown
231 Mass. 404 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Coyle v. Taunton Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
103 N.E. 288 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Lakin v. Lawrence
80 N.E. 578 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Long v. Anderson
48 Fla. 279 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Earl Carpenter & Sons Co. v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
68 N.E. 28 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
65 N.E. 815 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Whitaker v. Davis
91 F. 720 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1899)
Derick v. Taylor
50 N.E. 1038 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Foxborough Water Supply District
50 N.E. 1037 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Bates v. Skidmore
48 N.E. 962 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1897)
Nashua & Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad
41 N.E. 268 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 Mass. 192, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kempton-v-burgess-mass-1883.