Valente v. Cosentino

105 N.E. 551, 218 Mass. 125, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1340
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 25, 1914·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Loring, J.

The only defense to the plaintiff’s demand was that the claim sued on had been proved in bankruptcy, and so was merged in a judgment.

There is no foundation for the contention. For a full explanation of the matter, see Lowell on Bankruptcy, § 219.

[126]*126In our opinion the exceptions are frivolous and intended for delay.

The exceptions must be overruled with double costs from the time the exceptions were allowed; and the rate of interest from that time is to be twelve per cent a year. It is

So ordered.

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

Valente v. Cosentino, 105 N.E. 551, 218 Mass. 125, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1340 (Mass. 1914).

105 N.E. 551 (Valente v. Cosentino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National Surety Co. v. Reed
160 N.E. 281 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)