Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

160 Mass. 1

Cabana v. Conclave

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 20, 1893

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1893-10-20

Contbact. The writ, issued front the Police Court of Holyoke, described the defendant as a corporation. At the trial in the Superior Court, on appeal, before Dewey, J., it appeared that no written pleadings were required in the Police Court of Holyoke except declarations, and such as the statutes make obligatory, and in this case the defendant filed no written answer of any kind in the police court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-10-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1968

6 state decisions

2018931900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Allen, J.

¶1The writ described the defendant as a corporation. By Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 87, when a party is sued as a corporation, such fact shall be taken as admitted unless the defendant files in court, within ten days from the time allowed for answer, a special demand for proof thereof. By § 89, this provision is made applicable to civil actions before police courts. The rules of the Police Court of Holyoke did not require an answer in writing, but the oral pleading was a joinder of issue, and stood in the place of an answer. Wilbur v. Taber, 9 Gray, 361. The statute clearly implies that the special demand for proof should precede the trial; otherwise it would be useless. By going to trial without filing such demand, or asking delay after joining issue for the purpose of filing it, the defendant waived the right to take this objection. The Legislature no doubt intended to make an effective requirement that a defendant wishing to rely on such a misdescription should give early notice thereof to the plaintiff. Otherwise the defendant might lie by in the police court, and go to trial upon the substantial merits of the case, and omit all intimation of this objection till after the entry of an appeal in the Superior Court. That is just what the defendant did in this case. The ruling that the plaintiff was not bound to prove the defendant’s incorporation was right.

¶2Verdict to stand.

/160/mass/1 · .json · Public domain