Lee v. James

Decided January 2, 1890

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1890-01-02

Contract against the defendant James as principal and the other defendants as sureties on a bond given by them to dissolve an attachment in an action brought by the plaintiff against James and another, and conditioned for the payment of any judgment against them which James should fail to pay. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bishop, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, as follows.

Relies on Tapley v. Goodsell · Cutter v. Evans

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-01-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1944

3 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 →

C. Allen, J.

¶1The rule of the Municipal Court contemplates a late entry, upon motion and order. The consent of the defendants to a late entry dispensed with the necessity of such motion and order. It was within the power of that court to permit the entry to be made, and to proceed with the case; no objection was made, and the judgment was properly rendered, and was valid and binding upon the defendant in the case. That defendant having failed to pay the judgment, the sureties are bound by the express terms of their bond. Cutter v. Evans, 115 Mass. 27. Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 176, 182.

¶2Judgment on the verdict.