Rothstein v. Comm'r of Banks

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: RUGG
• Citation: 155 N.E. 7,258 Mass. 196
• Decision Date: 14 January 1927
• Parties: ROTHSTEIN v. COMMISSIONER OF BANKS et al.

258 Mass. 196
155 N.E. 7

ROTHSTEIN
v.
COMMISSIONER OF BANKS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 14, 1927.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Bill in equity by Morris Rothstein against the Commissioner of Banks and others. From a decree for defendants plaintiff appeals, Final decree to be entered dismissing bill.

See, also, 150 N. E. 178.

[258 Mass. 197]Horblit & Wasserman, of Boston, for appellant.

H. O. Cushman, of Boston, and G. L. Vaughan, of Melrose, for appellees.

RUGG, C. J.

[1] This is a bill in equity. The defendant filed what is termed ‘motion to dismiss.’ There is in this commonwealth no such pleading known to equity practice as a motion to dismiss. Noyes v. Bragg, 220 Mass. 106, 110, 107 N. E. 669;Wickwire Spencer Steel Corp. v. United Spring Co., 247 Mass. 565, 568, 142 N. E. 758;Nelson Theatre Co. v. Nelson, 216 Mass. 30, 32, 102 N. E. 926. It is provided by G. L. c. 214, § 13: ‘A defense to a suit in equity shall be made by demurrer, plea or answer.’ The practice thus established is recognized and followed in equity rules 5 and 7 (1926). This is in conformity with general rules of pleading in equity. Thrasher v. Partee, 37 Ga. 392, 396;Conover v. Ruckman, 32 N. J. Eq. 685;Dupuy v. Gibson, 36 Ill. 197, 199;Conway v. Sexton, 243 Ill. 59, 62, 90 N. E. 203. Where a contrary practice exists it commonly is by virtue of a special rule. Vineland v. Maretti, 93 N. J. Eq. 513, 518, 117 A. 483;Watson v. Wagner, 202 Mich. 397, 401, 168 N. W. 428; Equity rule 29 of federal courts (1912). International Paper Co. v. Commonwealth, 232 Mass. 7, 10, 121 N. E. 510, was not a suit in equity although under the governing statute proceedings were made conformable to equity practice so far as applicable; and the irregularity of a motion to dismiss was not argued nor suggested and was passed sub silentio. In Suffolk Knitting Mills v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 252 Mass. 394, 147 N. E. 830, no question of practice was raised and the anomalous nature of such a motion passed unnoticed. Perhaps other similar cases may be found.

[2] The substance of the paper filed by the defendant in the case at bar is a demurrer for want of jurisdiction. Weiscopf v. Commissioner of Banks (Mass.) 154 N. E. 855.

[258 Mass. 198]The proper way to raise the question of want of jurisdiction in equity in this commonwealth is by demurrer. May v. Parker, 12 Pick. 34, 36,22 Am. Dec. 393.

[3] Since the motion to dismiss as to its substance was a...