Lee v. James
This text of 23 N.E. 226 (Lee v. James) 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 N.E. 226, 150 Mass. 475, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-james-mass-1890.