Loughlin v. Parkinson
| Citation | 184 Mass. 565,69 N.E. 319 |
| Parties | LOUGHLIN v. PARKINSON et al. |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1904 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
F. F. Sullivan and Jos. M. Sullivan, for appellant.
Warner, Warner & Stackpole, for appellees.
This action comes before us on a demurrer to the plaintiff's amended declaration. The several counts set forth causes of action under St. 1890, p. 479, c. 437, and under the amendatory St. 1901, p. 391, c. 459, for the recovery of money paid for stocks contracted to be bought on margin. They follow substantially the language of the later statute, although they all describe transactions which occurred before the amendatory act was passed. We do not understand from the argument that the counts are deemed by the defendant insufficient in form. If St. 1890, p. 479, c. 437, is still in force, in reference to transactions which occurred prior to the enactment of St. 1901, p. 391, c. 459, and which come within the description of the amendatory act, for reasons stated in Wilson v. Head, 69 N.E. 317, we are of opinion that all the cases in which there may be a recovery under the later statute are included in the earlier statute, and that, as to such cases, the earlier statute has never been changed, but remains in force. The language in which the averments are made, although it takes the form found in the later statute, states a case in every count which is also within that part of the earlier statute which remains unchanged, and the entry must therefore be: Demurrer overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittsley v. David
...7 Cush. 490;Wright v. Oakley, 5 Metc. 400, 406, 407;United Hebrew Benevolent Association v. Benshimol, 130 Mass. 325;Loughlin v. Parkinson, 184 Mass. 565, 69 N.E. 319;McAdam v. Federal Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 288 Mass. 537, 541, 193 N.E. 362;McGray v. Hornblower (Mass.) 10 N.E.2d 501;G.L......
-
Weisberg v. Hunt
...of this statute upon the present case is not considered. See, however, Wilson v. Head, 184 Mass. 515, 69 N. E. 317;Loughlin v. Parkinson, 184 Mass. 565, 69 N. E. 319;Anderson v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange, 191 Mass. 117, 77 N. E. 706, and Chandler v. Prince, 221 Mass. 495, 497, note, 109 N......
-
Pittsley v. David
...be no actual purchase or sale." The plaintiff's evidence made a case under the earlier statute, but not under the later. See Loughlin v. Parkinson, 184 Mass. 565 . It was held that a verdict for the defendant was directed. The cause of action was created by a statute designed to discourage ......
-
Wilson v. Head
...Stock Exchange, 168 Mass. 282, 46 N. E. 1062. See, also, Cole v. Groves, 134 Mass. 471-472;Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657-667 [69 N.E. 319]13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. Ed. 1123;Kimbro v. Colgate, 5 Blatchf. 229, Fed. Cas. No. 7,778. The amendments therefore cut off all right of action which......