Kittredge v. Martin
6 N.E. 95, 141 Mass. 410, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 218
Opinion
W. Allen, J.
All the grounds upon which the defendant objects to the validity of the judgment upon which the action is brought are proper matters to be assigned for error in a writ of error upon the judgment; and are not matters to be averred and proved in defence of an action upon a domestic judgment.
The precise point is decided in McCormick v. Fiske, 138 Mass. 379, which cannot be distinguished from the case at bar.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kittredge v. Martin, 6 N.E. 95, 141 Mass. 410, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 218 (Mass. 1886).
6 N.E. 95 (Kittredge v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Leopold Morse Co. v. Jenkins
4 Mass. App. Div. 274 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Bristol Mutual Liability Insurance v. Leard
1 Mass. App. Div. 328 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)
Boston Acme Mines Development Co. v. Clawson
240 P. 105 (Utah Supreme Court, 1925)
J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Pederson
60 N.W. 747 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
McCann v. Jean
34 N.E. 316 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
State v. Kennedy
23 A. 431 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)
Sherman v. Hanno
28 A. 18 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889)
Eliot v. McCormick
10 N.E. 705 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)