Perry v. Hull

62 N.E. 962, 180 Mass. 547, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1136
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 28, 1902·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Barker, J.

We assume that all the allegations of the petition are true. We assume further, but without so deciding, that the decision of the chairman and secretary of the caucus may be revised by the courts in proper proceedings. But the demurrer was rightly sustained because mandamus will not lie where the petitioners have another remedy by bill or petition given by statute. Hill v. McKim, 168 Mass. 100. In that case a judge of a court of insolvency having refused to order a hearing upon a proposal for composition it was held that the proper remedy was by bill or petition under Pub. Sts. c. 157, § 15, and not by mandamus. The remedy of the present petitioners wa,s under St. 1898, c. 548, § 417. See R. L. c. 11, § 421.

Orders sustaining demurrer and dismissing petition affirmed.

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

Perry v. Hull, 62 N.E. 962, 180 Mass. 547, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1136 (Mass. 1902).

62 N.E. 962 (Perry v. Hull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Parrotta v. Hederson
53 N.E.2d 97 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Swift v. Board of Registrars of Voters
183 N.E. 727 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Acting Commissioner of Insurance
265 Mass. 23 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Godfrey v. Building Commissioner
161 N.E. 819 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
County Commissioners v. Mayor of Newburyport
252 Mass. 407 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Board of Survey v. Suburban Land Co.
235 Mass. 108 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Sears v. Assessors of Nahant
94 N.E. 467 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Cheney v. Coughlin
87 N.E. 744 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Cheney v. Barker
84 N.E. 492 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Attorney General v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
83 N.E. 408 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Finlay v. City of Boston
82 N.E. 5 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Brewster v. Sherman
80 N.E. 821 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Selectmen of Gardner v. Templeton Street Railway Co.
68 N.E. 340 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)