Petitcler v. Willis
This text of 99 Mass. 460 (Petitcler v. Willis) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
99 Mass. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petitcler-v-willis-mass-1868.