Young v. Watson
| Decision Date | 27 November 1891 |
| Citation | 155 Mass. 77,28 N.E. 1135 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. WATSON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
A.E. Bragg, for demandant.
L.E. White, for tenants.
One Sweet had recovered possession of the demanded premises from the demandant Young, and we infer from the tenants' answer (though the fact is not otherwise stated) that Sweet subsequently conveyed the premises to the tenants, so that they stand in his place. In the action of Sweet against Young, the latter entered an appearance by attorney, and filed an answer. Afterwards the attorney signed an agreement that judgment be entered for the demandant Sweet, but that the demandant take no costs. Judgment was accordingly so entered, and execution issued, and Sweet was put in possession. In the present case, Young's counsel admitted at the trial that if the above settlement or agreement was authorized by Young it would be a bar to this action, but offered to show that it was unauthorized, and against his express direction. This evidence was excluded. Both Sweet and Young lived in this commonwealth, and there was no question of the jurisdiction of the court, or of the authority of Young's attorney to appear for him, and to do such acts as were within his general authority as an attorney employed to conduct the defense of the action. The record shows a judgment properly entered. Denton v. Noyes. 6 Johns 296,300. If Young would impeach it, he must institute proceedings directly for that purpose. Being a party to it, he cannot replace it in the present action. Hendrick v. Whittemore, 105 Mass. 23; Needham v. Thayer, 147 Mass. 536, 538, 18 N.E. 429. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullins v. Rieger
...149; Gott v. Powell, 41 Mo. 420; Van Camp v. Smith, 65 Mo. 536; Bradley v. Welsh, 100 Mo. 258; Lilliebridge v. Ross, 59 Mo. 217; Young v. Watson, 155 Mass. 77; Brown Nichols, 42 N.Y. 26. (b) The judgment being admittedly regular upon its face, and not being void, can not be attacked collate......
-
Elfman v. Glaser
...the plaintiff on the ground that it was obtained by reason of negligence or misconduct of his attorney in the earlier action. Young v. Watson, 155 Mass. 77 , 78. v. MacDougall, 273 Mass. 386, 388. Noyes v. Bankers Indemnity Ins. Co. 307 Mass. 567 , 569. Judgment for the defendant. ...
-
Lewis v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
... ... v. City of Blue Springs, 84 Neb. 577, 122 ... N.W. 21; Williams v. Simmons, 79 Ga. 649; 7 ... S.E. 133; Frisby v. Withers, 61 Tex. 134; ... Young v. Watson, 155 Mass. 77; 28 N.E ... 1135; Biddle v. Pierce, 13 Ind.App. 239, 41 ... N.E. 475; White v. Bogart, 73 N.Y. 256; ... Hughes v ... ...
-
Bishop v. Donnell
...168 Mass. 105, 46 N.E. 409; Hall v. Staples, 166 Mass. 399, 44 N.E. 351; Iron Co. v. Crafts, 156 Mass. 257, 30 N.E. 1024; Young v. Watson, 155 Mass. 77, 28 N.E. 1135; Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87, 28 N.E. 6; v. Thayer, 147 Mass. 536, 18 N.E. 429; City of Fall River v. Rilly, 140 Mass. 488, ......