Brow v. Norton
Mary Brow v. James E. Norton
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Field, C. J.
The only question of law arising on this appeal is whether the order of the Superior Court was within its power, if that court found the facts to be as alleged in the motion. There can be no doubt that St. 1894, c. 405, confers this power on the court. It is contended that the motion was waived by the filing of an answer. It appears that on April 7,1896, which was Tuesday after the first Monday of April, on which, as we infer, the writ was returnable, the motion was filed, and that afterwards on the 5th day of May an answer was filed, in which it was expressly stated that the defendant did not waive the motion. The filing of such an answer was not a waiver of the motion. The order discontinuing the action with costs must be affirmed.
So ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.