Farnum v. Aronson
| Decision Date | 16 October 1925 |
| Citation | 149 N.E. 124,253 Mass. 464 |
| Parties | FARNUM v. ARONSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Superior Court, Worcester County; Walter Perley Hall, Judge.
Action on a contract by Joseph Aronson against E. S. Farnum. Plaintiff's motion for default for defendant's failure to answer was allowed. Defendant's motion to remove default was denied, and judgment entered, and defendant brings error. Judgment affirmed.
E. S. Farnum, pro se.
H. R. Sher, of Worcester, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error on a special judgment of the superior court begun and holden at Worcester, within and for the county of Worcester, on the 27th of September, 1924, wherein Joseph Aronson was plaintiff and E. S. Farnum was defendant.
On March 4, 1924, the defendant in error, Aronson, brought an action in contract against the plaintiff in error, E. S. Farnum. The writ, served by a summons in hand given to the defendant, E. S. Farnum, was returnable to the Central district court on March 15, 1924. The defendant in error on March 15, 1924, filed a declaration with the writ in the Central district court. The plaintiff in error was incorrectly described in the declaration as E. G. Farnum. After an appearance, the plaintiff in error, on March 21, 1924, duly made claim of a trial by jury (St. 1922, c. 532), and the case was transferred to the superior court (G. L. c. 231, § 104). August 30, 1924, the defendant in error filed a motion for default for failure to answer. G. L. c. 231, § 57. September 22, 1924, the motion was allowed and notice thereof was mailed the plaintiff in error. September 23, 1924, a motion to remove the default was duly filed. September 26, 1924, the motion was denied, and a special judgment was entered on September 27, 1924. The writ of error issued November 13, 1924, and the action was removed into the Supreme Judicial Court sitting at Worcester on the first Monday of December, 1924. The plea to the several assignments of error was in nullo est erratum. The plaintiff in error in his brief formally waives all assignments of error except the third and an unnumbered assignment which was allowed to be added by the Chief Justice of this court.
The third assignments reads:
‘That a duly claimed trial by jury entitled the defendant in said cause of file an answer as a matter of right before being defaulted.’
The assumption of the plaintiff that the filing of the affidavit of his attorney to the effect ‘that in his opinion there is an issue of fact requiring trial in the said cause’ relieved him of the duty to file an answer within the time established for so doing by G. L. c. 231, § 57, has no support in the statutes or decisions.
The remaining assignment of error reads:
‘That the said Joseph Aronson in his writ has made the said E. S. Farnum defendant and in his declaration has named an entirely different party, by name E. G. Farnum, which misnomer entitles to the plaintiff in error a writ of error.’
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moriarty v. King
...2 Cush. 555;Fay v. Hayden, 7 Gray 41;Austin v. Lamar Fire Ins. Co., 108 Mass. 338;Hamilton v. Ingraham, 121 Mass. 562;Farnum v. Aronson, 253 Mass. 464, 466, 149 N.E. 124;Perry v. Sapeilo, 297 Mass. 242, 8 N.E.2d 810, and cases cited. See McIniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray 600. We think this case ......
-
Bornstein v. Justices of Mun. Court of Roxbury Dist. of Boston
...3 Metc. 316, 328.Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 135 Mass. 266;Lane v. Commonwealth, 161 Mass. 120, 36 N. E. 755;Farnum v. Aronson, 253 Mass. 464, 149 N. E. 124;King v. Commonwealth, 246 Mass. 57, 140 N. E. 253;Finer v. Commonwealth, 250 Mass. 493, 146 N. E. 23. The order ‘Petition dismissed’ w......
-
Mayor of Cambridge v. Dean
... ... Dryden, 9 Pick. 546; Tarbell v. Gray, 4 Gray, ... 444; Hollis v. Richardson, 13 Gray, 392; Mullaly v ... Holden, 123 Mass. 583; Farnum v. Aronson, 253 ... Mass. 464 , 466; G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 250, Section 4; ... Perkins v. Bangs, 206 Mass. 408 , 416 ... As an ... ...
-
Moriarty v. King
...2 Cush. 555. Fay v. Hayden, 7 Gray, 41. Austin v. Lamar Fire Ins. Co. 108 Mass. 338 . Hamilton v. Ingraham, 121 Mass. 562 . Farnum v. Aronson, 253 Mass. 464 , 466. Perry v. Sapeilo, 297 Mass. 242 , and cases See McIniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray, 600. We think this case distinguishable from Bell......