Krasnow v. Krasnow
This text of 149 N.E. 321 (Krasnow v. Krasnow) 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.
Opinion
This case comes before us on exceptions of the defendant to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict and to the order directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. At the trial no ground of exception was requested or stated. Every ground therefore is open. Proctor v. Dillon, 235 Mass. 538, 540. The action is on a promissory note dated April 5, 1923, due in three months. It became due on July 5, 1923, and the maker was entitled to the whole of that day in which to pay the note. The writ was dated on July 5,1923. The action was prematurely brought. The motion for a directed verdict ought to have been granted on this ground. G. L. c. 107, § 109. Estes v. Tower, 102 Mass. 65. The date of the writ in absence of evidence must be presumed to be the commencement of the action. Rosenblatt v. Foley, 252 Mass. 188.
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
149 N.E. 321, 253 Mass. 528, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 1280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krasnow-v-krasnow-mass-1925.