Church v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 05 January 1893 |
| Parties | CHURCH v. PHILLIPS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
T. Henry Pearse, for plaintiff.
Geo. L. Huntress, for defendant.
Actions of tort for malicious prosecution cannot be commenced by trustee process. Pub.St. c. 183, § 1. This action was therefore rightly dismissed on motion. If it was in the power of the court to allow an amendment which would change the nature of the proceedings, and give jurisdiction to render a judgment against the defendant, he having answered generally, and without objection, until after the plaintiff's evidence had been introduced, it was within the discretion of the court to refuse to allow such an amendment, and to the exercise of the discretion no exception lies.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Gen. ex rel. Bates v. Henry
...146 N. E. 900;Weinstein v. Miller, 251 Mass. 503, 505, 146 N. E. 902. The case at bar is distinguishable from cases like Church v. Phillips, 157 Mass. 566, 32 N. E. 911;Partridge v. Inhabitants of Arlington, 193 Mass. 530, 79 N. E. 812;Brooks v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 211 Mass. 2......
-
Attorney General v. Henry
... ... Tucker, 124 ... Mass. 240 , McLaughlin v. West End Street Railway, ... 186 Mass. 150 , Eaton v. Walker, 244 Mass. 23, 29, ... Phillips v. Director General of Railroads, 251 Mass ... 263; certiorari denied in Davis v. Phillips, 269 ... U.S. 573 ... Every substantive ... Carraher, 251 Mass. 536 , ... 539. Weinstein v. Miller, 251 Mass. 503 , 505. The ... case at bar is distinguishable from cases like Church v ... Phillips, 157 Mass. 566 , Partridge v ... Arlington, 193 Mass. 530 , Brooks v. Boston & ... Northern Street Railway, 211 Mass. 277 , ... ...
-
Guarino v. Russo
...plain mandate by the allowance of an amendment, which would transform the action into one of the prohibited kind. See Church v. Philips, 157 Mass. 566, 32 N.E. 911. exceptions must be sustained unless the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of the rescript is permitted to amend his decla......
-
Guarino v. Russo
...plain mandate by the allowance of an amendment, which would transform the action into one of the prohibited kind. See Church v. Philips, 157 Mass. 566, 32 N. E. 911. The exceptions must be sustained unless the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of the rescript is permitted to amend his ......