Goodrich v. Stevens
| Citation | 116 Mass. 170 |
| Parties | Elijah D. Goodrich v. Henry H. Stevens |
| Decision Date | 24 October 1874 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Worcester. Contract upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of the state of New York.
At the trial before Gray C. J., the plaintiff introduced as evidence of the judgment declared on an exemplification of it which was partly printed and partly in writing. The defendant objected that the certificate of the clerk appended to the exemplification applied to the written part only. But upon inspection of the papers it was ruled that the certificate was intended to and did extend to the whole judgment roll.
The defendant offered to show that the real owner of the cause of action so sued upon in New York was Henry P. Smith, a citizen of that state, and that the nominal plaintiff took an assignment of this cause of action from Smith without any consideration, and for the purpose of having the suit brought in New York, between citizens of Massachusetts, in order to confer on the courts of New York final jurisdiction of the cause, and to defraud the defendant of his right to remove the case to the Circuit Court of the United States.
The defendant also offered to show that the nominal plaintiff was not the real owner of the judgment, that the real owner resides in New York, and contended that the writ was defective in not setting forth the name of the real owner of the cause of action.
The evidence was excluded; a verdict was taken for the plaintiff and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
W. S B. Hopkins, for the defendant.
T. L Nelson, for the plaintiff.
A portion of the judgment roll offered by the plaintiff was printed, and a portion was in writing. The only objection to its admission was, that the certificate of the clerk applied to the written part only. This is a matter to be determined by examination and inspection of the papers. No question of law is involved in the decision, and it is apparent that the certificate was intended to and does extend to the whole judgment roll. The ruling of the presiding judge admitting it in evidence was correct. Knapp v. Abell, 10 Allen 485. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 504, 506.
The facts which the defendant offered to prove, if proper matter of defence, should have been presented in the original action. It was alleged in the plaintiff's complaint in that action, that the contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Choate v. Bd. of Assessors of City of Boston
...his name, if he is indemnified against the payment of costs or expenses that might be incurred by the prosecution of the claim. Goodrich v. Stevens, 116 Mass. 170.Fay v. Guynon, 131 Mass. 31;Piper v. Childs, 290 Mass. 560, 195 N.E. 763. This principle does not apply to the case at bar. The ......
-
Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. City of Lowell
...complainant by the purchaser as the person beneficially interested. Hart v. Western R. Co., 13 Metc. 99, 106,46 Am. Dec. 719;Goodrich v. Stevens, 116 Mass. 170;Fay v. Guynon, 131 Mass. 31. The complainant was the owner of the property upon which the tax was assessed on April 1, and until Ap......
-
Wilbur v. Ford
...would allow a suit to be brought in Massachusetts in the officer's name without inquiring into his official capacity. Goodrich v. Stevens, 116 Mass. 170. Cf. Choate v. Assessors of Boston, 304 Mass. 298, 303, 304, 23 N.E.2d 882; Cooper v. American Airlines, Inc., Defendants attack Counts 2 ......
-
Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. City of Lowell
... ... as the person beneficially interested. Hart v. Western Rail ... Road, 13 Met. 99, 106. Goodrich v. Stevens, 116 ... Mass. 170 ... Fay v. Guynon, 131 Mass. 31 ... The complainant was ... the owner of the property upon which the ... ...