Lee v. James

23 N.E. 226, 150 Mass. 475, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 306
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 2, 1890·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The rule of the Municipal Court contemplates a late entry, upon motion and order. The consent of the defendants to a late entry dispensed with the necessity of such motion and order. It was within the power of that court to permit the entry to be made, and to proceed with the case; no objection was made, and the judgment was properly rendered, and was valid and binding upon the defendant in the case. That defendant having failed to pay the judgment, the sureties are bound by the express terms of their bond. Cutter v. Evans, 115 Mass. 27. Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176, 182.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Lee v. James, 23 N.E. 226, 150 Mass. 475, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 306 (Mass. 1890).

23 N.E. 226 (Lee v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McDonough v. Burke
9 Mass. App. Div. 222 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1944)
Elder v. Prussing
101 Ill. App. 655 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Gorgorian v. Prood
44 N.E. 1069 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)