Petitcler v. Willis

99 Mass. 460
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Foster, J.

The order to furnish an indorser was properly directed to Wolcott, the real party in interest, by whom alone the suit was prosecuted. The nominal plaintiff had upon the record disclaimed Wolcott’s right to use his name, and the action could be continued in court only upon the assumption that Wolcott was, as he claimed to be, entitled to use the name of the record plaintiff to enforce a claim equitably belonging to himself.

The court in its discretion may in any case require an indorser, and the propriety of the exercise of such discretion cannot be revised by this court. Gen. Sts. c. 129, §§ 29, 32.

Judgment dismissing the action affirmed.

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

Petitcler v. Willis, 99 Mass. 460 (Mass. 1868).

99 Mass. 460 (Petitcler v. Willis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shuttleworth v. Dunlop
34 N.J. Eq. 488 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1881)