Long v. MacDougall
| Decision Date | 28 November 1930 |
| Citation | 173 N.E. 507,273 Mass. 386 |
| Parties | LONG v. MacDOUGALL |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Walsh, Judge.
Action by Oscar Long against Barbara J. MacDougall. Verdict for plaintiff was set aside by trial court under leave reserved, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
D. H. Fulton, of Boston, for plaintiff.
R. B. Coulter, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries and property damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff in a collision between two automobiles, one driven by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant. The answer of the defendant is a general denial and a special answer to the effect that a judgment had been entered in behalf of Barbara J. MacDougall against Oscar Long in the superior court as the result of an action founded upon the same collision.
Subject to the exception of the plaintiff the judge permitted the defendant to file an amendment setting up that a judgment had been entered in the case of Barbara J. MacDougall against Oscar Long, in Norfolk county, and also admitted in evidence the writ, declaration, answer, agreement for judgment and docket entries in that case. From these it appeared that the said action was based upon the same collision of automobiles which are concerned in the instant case. The record further discloses that attorneys appeared for Oscar Long and, without any trial of the facts, agreed to a judgment of $350 in behalf of Barbara J. MacDougall against Oscar Long, and to a further entry of ‘judgment satisfied.’ During the course of the trial it was in evidence, and was all the evidence material to the issue raised by the bill of exceptions, that Oscar Long was insured, and had a policy of insurance in the Union Indemnity Company; that a summons was served upon him in an action of Barbara J. MacDougall against Oscar Long; that he turned the summons over to his insurance broker and did not know that happened to it afterwards; that he was not able to find his insurance policy; and that he did not know and never spoke to any member of the firm of attorneys who appeared for him, and never authorized them to agree to any judgment against him. The jury found for the plaintiff and assessed damages. The judge set this verdict aside under leave reserved. To this action and to the action of the judge in allowing amendments to the answer setting up the judgment as aforesaid the plaintiff excepted.
‘The motion upon which the verdict was set aside under the leave reserved was allowed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKnight v. Pettigrew
...S.E. 115; Stewart v. Stewart, 40 W.Va. 65, 20 S.E. 862; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Ferrell, 144 Va. 395, 132 S.E. 312; Long v. MacDougall, 273 Mass. 386, 173 N.E. 507. In Teter v. Irwin, supra, this Court said [69 W.Va. 200, 71 S.E. 118] '* * * The books say that, when an accredited attor......
-
Elfman v. Glaser
... ... other purposes. See Robitaille v. Morse, 283 Mass ... 27, 35. And such a plaintiff must be held to his election at ... least so long as the judgment stands. Clearly "leave to ... amend," where granted by a special order, does not ... contemplate the actual filing by a plaintiff ... negligence or misconduct of his attorney in the earlier ... action. Young v. Watson, 155 Mass. 77 , 78. Long ... v. MacDougall ... ...
-
Ansara v. Regan
...the foreclosure sale. It is not open to them to litigate that issue anew. Biggio v. Magee, 272 Mass. 185, 172 N. E. 336;Long v. MacDougall (Mass.) 173 N. E. 507. We need not consider whether in technical law there was here res judicata; whether if all that appeared was a consent judgment in......
-
Noyes v. Bankers Indem. Ins. Co.
...the parties as long as it stands, and cannot be attacked collaterally. Joyce v. Thompson, 229 Mass. 106, 118 N.E. 184;Long v. MacDougall, 273 Mass. 386, 173 N.E. 507;Sciaraffa v. Debler, 304 Mass. 240, 23 N.E.2d 111. The reason for the rule has been said to be the existence of a remedy by w......