Richardson v. Bartlett
223 Mass. 450
Opinion
This record affords no foundation for the contention that the firm, with whom the defendant made the contract, was not composed of the persons named as plaintiffs in the writ and declaration as amended.
The court had authority to allow the amendment adding as one of the plaintiffs the person who, according to the testimony, was a partner at the time of the contract upon which the action was brought.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Richardson v. Bartlett, 223 Mass. 450 (Mass. 1916).
223 Mass. 450 (Richardson v. Bartlett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cohen v. Marandola
32 Mass. App. Dec. 151 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1965)
Cantin v. Moriarty
18 Mass. App. Dec. 131 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1960)
Robinson v. Trustees of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
60 N.E.2d 593 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)