TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Church v. Phillips

Maria Church v. John G. Phillips & another

Church v. Phillips, 32 N.E. 911 (Mass. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 4, 1893
Judges
Knowlton
Citations
32 N.E. 911157 Mass. 5661893 Mass. LEXIS 371
Headnotes
Malicious Prosecution— Trustee Process — Amendment — Discretion of Court. An action of tort for malicious prosecution cannot be commenced by trustee process. If it is in the power of the Superior Court to allow an amendment of the writ in an action for malicious prosecution commenced by trustee process, the principal defendant having answered generally and without objection until after the plaintiff’s evidence has been introduced, it is within the discretion of the court to refuse to allow such amendment, and to the exercise of such discretion no exception lies.
Summary
Tort, for malicious prosecution, commenced by trustee process. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Thompson, J., without a jury, after the plaintiff had rested her case, the principal defendant moved to dismiss the action, on the ground that it was commenced by trustee process. The judge declined to rule on this motion until the principal defendant’s evidence had been put in. That was done, and the principal defendant then renewed his motion to dismiss, which the judge took under advisement. The plaintiff asked leave to amend her writ, in case the judge should rule that the action was not maintainable on the ground taken by the principal defendant. Subsequently, the judge denied the motion to amend, and allowed the motion to dismiss; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Knowlton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Knowlton, J.

Actions of tort for malicious prosecution cannot be commenced by trustee process. Pub. Sts. c. 183, § 1. This action was therefore rightly dismissed on motion. If it was in the power of the court to allow an amendment which would change the nature of the proceedings, and give jurisdiction to render a judgment against the principal defendant, he having answered generally and without objection until after the plaintiff’s evidence had been introduced, it was within the discretion of the court to refuse to allow such an amendment, and to the exercise of the discretion no exception lies.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11920: 21928: 119132026peak 1920 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Attorney General v. Henry159 N.E. 539 (Mass. 1928)
  2. Guarino v. Russo102 N.E. 128 (Mass. 1913)
  3. Martí v. American Railroad28 P.R. Dec. 737 (1920)
  4. Martí v. American Railroad28 P.R. 689 (1920)

Most recent

  1. Attorney General v. Henry159 N.E. 539 (Mass. 1928)
  2. Martí v. American Railroad28 P.R. 689 (1920)
  3. Martí v. American Railroad28 P.R. Dec. 737 (1920)
  4. Guarino v. Russo102 N.E. 128 (Mass. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list