Sherman v. Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge
11 Mass. 338
Opinion
The first corporation was dead, and the new one was created for the same purpose and object. The writ was served on the clerk of the existing corporation, by which regular notice was given the real proprietors of the bridge. This is, then, the common case of a misnomer. The amendment may be made, on the common rule of an election by the defendants of the costs of the action to this time, or a continuance,
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sherman v. Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge, 11 Mass. 338 (Mass. 1814).
11 Mass. 338 (Sherman v. Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hennessey v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.
65 Mass. App. Ct. 88 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2005)
Gans v. Beasley
59 N.W. 714 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
Hoffield v. Board of Education
33 Kan. 644 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)
Kimball & Austin Manufacturing Co. v. Vroman
35 Mich. 310 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1877)
Noblet v. Ohio & M. R.
18 F. Cas. 282 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1876)
Smith v. Tallassee Branch of Central Plank-Road Co.
30 Ala. 650 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)
Cartwright v. Chabert
3 Tex. 261 (Texas Supreme Court, 1848)
Heckscher v. Binney
11 F. Cas. 1016 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1847)