Saunders v. Huntington

44 N.E. 127, 166 Mass. 96, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 82
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 20, 1896·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Barker, J.

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] had 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

Saunders v. Huntington, 44 N.E. 127, 166 Mass. 96, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 82 (Mass. 1896).

44 N.E. 127 (Saunders v. Huntington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Canton Lumber & Supplies, Inc. v. MacNevin
37 Mass. App. Dec. 217 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1967)
Hooker v. Porter
171 N.E. 713 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Pell v. McCabe
254 F. 356 (S.D. New York, 1918)