¶1The demandant, as subsequent purchaser, ia not shown to have had any notice of the amendment of the declaration in the action in which the attachment was made under which the tenant claims title. It does not appear on the face of the original and amended declarations that they were for the same cause of action, and oral evidence is therefore admissible *181to show whether they were or were not. It being admitted, if legally provable by such evidence, that claims not included in the original declaration were included in the amended declaration, and in the award and judgment and levy of execution on which the tenant relies, the attachment was dissolved, and the levy gave no title, as against this demandant. His title is therefore better than the tenant’s. Gen. Sts. a. 129, § 82. Hill v. Hunnewell, 1 Pick. 192. Willis v. Crooker, Ib. 204, 206, note. Wood v. Denny, 7 Gray, 540, 542. Judgment for the demandant.
112 Mass. 180
Freeman v. Creech
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 15, 1873
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1873-03-15
Writ of entry to recover land in Boston. It appeared from an agreed statement of facts that both parties claimed title from one Wentworth ; that one McNiel sued Wentworth an action of contract, and attached the land in question; that, after the attachment, Wentworth mortgaged the premises ; that the mortgage title by assignment came to the demandant; that after the making of the mortgage McNiel filed an amended declaration containing additional counts; that it did not appear…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1873-03-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1929
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →