¶1At the time of the death of Gerrish, the action being still pending against the other defendant, the administratrix of Gerrish could not be summoned in to defend. New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Hayden, 119 Mass. 361. Cochrane v. Cushing, ante, 219. The order of the court, after the return of the summons to her, that no default should be entered until further notice, extended the time within which she might file a motion to dismiss. That motion was therefore seasonably made and rightly granted. Exceptions overruled.
124 Mass. 367
Ricker v. Gerrish
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 12, 1878
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1878-04-12
Contract against George W. Gerrish and John Q. A. Hanson on two joint and several recognizances entered into under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, on September 5, 1874, by the first named defendant as principal, and the other defendant as surety, and each containing the usual conditions. Writ dated October 6, 1874, and returnable at January term 1875 of the Superior Court. On February 18, 1876, Hanson filed an answer, setting up his discharge in bankruptcy.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1902
2 state decisions
Relies on New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Hayden
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1878-04-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →