Linton v. Hurley
104 Mass. 353
Opinion
On the 10th of June 1858 the plaintiff had a claim against the defendants for damages for a personal injury, and had commenced an action of tort to recover damages therefor, which action was then pending, and judgment was not ren[354]*354dered in his favor till October term 1859. On the day first mentioned he assigned his claim to Moses G. Cobb. He contends that this assignment was void, and this position is sustained by the case of Rice v. Stone, 1 Allen, 566. The ruling that it was valid was erroneous. Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Linton v. Hurley, 104 Mass. 353 (Mass. 1870).
104 Mass. 353 (Linton v. Hurley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
León Parra v. Gerardino
58 P.R. 494 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1941)
Lee v. Fisk
109 N.E. 833 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Díaz v. San Juan Light & Transit Co.
17 P.R. 64 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1911)
Tyler v. the Superior Court
73 A. 467 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1909)
Flynn v. Butler
75 N.E. 730 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Robinson v. Wiley
74 N.E. 923 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Wilde v. Mahaney
62 L.R.A. 813 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Bennett v. Sweet
51 N.E. 183 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
North Chicago Street Railroad v. Ackley
171 Ill. 100 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1897)