Mason v. Pearson

118 Mass. 61, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 308
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 23, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 118 Mass. 61 (Mason v. Pearson) 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.

Bluebook
Mason v. Pearson, 118 Mass. 61, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 308 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

Final judgment having been entered, without any error or mistake, in accordance with the ordér of the court, when all parties were before it, the court had no authority, on motion after the term at which such judgment was entered, to vacate the judgment or stay the execution. Medford v. Dorsey, 2 Wash. C. C. 433. Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492. Bank of United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38. Avery v. United States, 12 Wall. 304. Lander v. Gordon, 7 M. & W. 218. Terry v. Briggs, 12 Cush. 319. Barnes v. Smith, 104 Mass. 363.

This is not a case in which the necessary parties had not been summoned in before the judgment was entered, as in Ex parte Crenshaw, 15 Pet. 119, and Stickney v. Davis, 17 Pick. 169; or in which, by misprision of the clerk or other mistake, the judgment entered was not such as was intended, as in The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1,10; Capen v. Stoughton, 16 Gray, 364; and Lucy v. Dowling, 114 Mass. . It is still less like those in whicl there had been a mere omission to enter the proper continuances, and the motion to bring the case forward was made before final judgment, as in all the other cases cited in Marshall v. Merritt, 103 Mass. 45.

The decision in Marshall v. Merritt cannot be extended by the general expressions in the opinion beyond the peculiar circumstances of the case. Before the judgment had been fully made up or the costs taxed, the party against whom it was rendered sued out a writ of audita querela, and the motion to bring forward the original suit was made at the next term after judgment on the audita querela. See Foss v. Witham, 9 Allen, 572. Whatever may be the weight of that decision, if the same question should be again presented for adjudication, it affords no precedent for the action of the judge below in the present case. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Amory v. Assessors of Boston
34 N.E.2d 507 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Kelly v. Foley
188 N.E. 349 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Commonwealth v. Dascalakis
246 Mass. 12 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Davis v. National Live Insurance
187 Mass. 468 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Commonwealth v. Soderquest
66 N.E. 801 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Commonwealth v. O'Brien
55 N.E. 466 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Commonwealth v. Hayes
48 N.E. 779 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Radclyffe v. Barton
28 N.E. 148 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Keith v. McCaffrey
12 N.E. 419 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Pierce v. Lamper
6 N.E. 223 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
Wood v. Payea
138 Mass. 61 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Mortland v. Bernard Little & Trustee
137 Mass. 339 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 Mass. 61, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-pearson-mass-1875.