O'Neal v. Kittredge

85 Mass. 470
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 Mass. 470 (O'Neal v. Kittredge) 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
O'Neal v. Kittredge, 85 Mass. 470 (Mass. 1862).

Opinion

Bigelow, C. J.

We can see no defect in this declaration. The plaintiff was not bound to set out the precise sum which he might be entitled to recover upon the judgment declared on. That would depend on the state of the evidence at the trial. The cause of action, to wit, the judgment, is described with substantial certainty and precision. Strictly speaking, if any payment had been made, which reduced the amount due on the judgment, it was matter in defence, which the defendant was [471]*471bound to aver and prove. Therefore he has no reason to complain that the plaintiff has declared only for a balance, instead of setting put a claim for the whole amount for which the judgment was originally rendered.

Demurrer overruled.

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

Related

Hummer v. Lamphear
32 Kan. 439 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 Mass. 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-kittredge-mass-1862.