Saunders v. Huntington
This text of 44 N.E. 127 (Saunders v. Huntington) 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 decree was right. The discharge in bankruptcy is a defence to the suit upon the judgments. See Huntington v. Saunders, ante, 92. No reason is shown why the remedy at law is not adequate and complete in the present instance. We express no opinion upon the question whether the plaintiff could maintain a bill for equitable relief if the judgments were such that executions upon them might issue, and if executions [97]*97had been threatened or issued. See Boynton v. Ball, 121 U. S. 457. The case is remitted to the Superior Court, such decree to be entered in accordance with the opinion as equity may demand. So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 N.E. 127, 166 Mass. 96, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-huntington-mass-1896.