Smith v. Whiting

100 Mass. 122
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 100 Mass. 122 (Smith v. Whiting) 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.

Bluebook
Smith v. Whiting, 100 Mass. 122 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

1. The motion to amend the defendants* answer was addressed to the' discretion of the presiding judge; and his decision is not subject to exception.

2. Even if the amendment had been made, the evidence offered did not tend to- establish a legal defence. The defendant had sued out a writ of replevin against the plaintiff, under the authority of which he had taken the cattle from the plaintiff’s possession, upon giving the bond in suit. As he failed to prosecute his action, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on his bond for nominal damages, at the least, because the condition of the bond is broken. Nominal damages are all that he now claims. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vivianne Jade Washington v. Investigator Hugh Howard
25 F.4th 891 (Eleventh Circuit, 2022)
Epps v. Miller
173 S.E.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)
Henri Peladeau, Lte. v. Fred Gillespie Lumber Co.
285 Mass. 10 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp.
175 N.E. 174 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Davis Bros. v. Wallace
130 S.E. 176 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Jarvis v. DePeza
146 N.E. 662 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Huston v. Big Bend Land Co.
1 F.2d 93 (Ninth Circuit, 1924)
Alfred E. Joy Co. v. New Amstebdam Casualty Co.
120 A. 684 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1923)
Budracco v. National Surety Co.
112 Misc. 133 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)
Aronson v. Nurenberg
105 N.E. 1056 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Friedenwald Co. v. Warren
81 N.E. 207 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Fay v. Hunt
77 N.E. 502 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Cox v. Sargent
10 Colo. App. 1 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1897)
Little v. Bliss
55 Kan. 94 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1895)
Barlow v. Nelson
32 N.E. 359 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Peffley v. Kenrick
31 N.E. 40 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1892)
Jones v. Smith
10 A. 256 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1887)
Boom v. St. Paul Foundry & Manufacturing Co.
22 N.W. 538 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1885)
Gardiner v. McDermott
12 R.I. 206 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 Mass. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-whiting-mass-1868.