¶1The mistake in the writ was rightly allowed to be amended. McIniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray, 600. Fay v. Hayden,, 7 Gray, 41. Hart v. Waitt, 3 Allen, 532. Austin v. Lamar Ins. Co. 108 Mass. 338. Judgment affirmed.
121 Mass. 562
Hamilton v. Ingraham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 18, 1877
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1877-01-18
Contract. The writ, issued from a District Court, was dated August 18, 1875, returnable on the “thirtieth day of August next.” The defendant entered a special appearance and filed a plea to the jurisdiction, on the ground “ that the writ was not made returnable within the time required by law.” The justice overruled the defendant’s plea, and allowed a motion of the plaintiff to amend his writ by substituting the word “ current ” for the word “ next,” and ordered judgment for…
Relies on Austin v. Lamar Fire Insurance
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1877-01-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1944
5 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 →