TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hastings v. Parker

Bridget E. Hastings v. Herman Parker & another

Hastings v. Parker, 47 N.E. 194 (Mass. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 21, 1897
Judges
Field
Citations
47 N.E. 194168 Mass. 4451897 Mass. LEXIS 260
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Petition to vacate a Judgment—Statute—Answer. Under St. 1895, c. 234, entitled " An Act relative to the vacation of judgments and writs of and petitions for review,” the petitioner cannot require the respondent to file an answer.
Summary
Petition, filed April 9, 1896, in the Superior Court for the county of Norfolk, to vacate a judgment rendered against the petitioner in that court, and for a supersedeas and other relief, pursuant to St. 1895, c. 234. At the hearing in the Superior Court, before Dunbar, J., it appeared that an order of notice was duly issued pursuant to § 3 of the statute; that the petitioner read the petition and asked the judge to order the respondents to file an answer, but that the judge declined so to order, and dismissed the petition with costs; and the petitioner 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 — Field

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

Field, C. J.

The only exception is to the refusal of the court to order the respondents to file an answer to the petition.

The St. 1895, c. 234, does not require the respondent to file an answer, and there is no rule of the Superior Court that in terms requires an answer to such a petition. Such a petition, like a petition for a writ of review, never has been treated as an action at law in which the respondent may be defaulted if he does not file an answer, and the proceedings are not within the provisions of Pub. Sts. c. 167, §§ 13-29, and §§ 45-47.

It is unnecessary to consider whether the court has not the power to order an answer to be filed to such a petition if it seems to the court necessary or desirable. The petitioner has no right to require this to be done.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 11922: 11925: 11927: 11930: 11938: 11950: 119202026peak 1920 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Maker v. Bouthier242 Mass. 20 (1922)
  2. Marsch v. Southern New England Railroad126 N.E. 519 (Mass. 1920)
  3. Thomajanian v. Odabshian172 N.E. 232 (Mass. 1930)
  4. Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co.13 N.E.2d 611 (Mass. 1938)
  5. Wrinn v. Sellers252 Mass. 423 (1925)
  6. Hendrick v. West Roxbury Co-operative Bank92 N.E.2d 238 (Mass. 1950)

Most recent

  1. Hendrick v. West Roxbury Co-operative Bank92 N.E.2d 238 (Mass. 1950)
  2. Lynch v. Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co.13 N.E.2d 611 (Mass. 1938)
  3. Thomajanian v. Odabshian172 N.E. 232 (Mass. 1930)
  4. Luman v. Hill256 P. 339 (Wyo. 1927)
  5. Wrinn v. Sellers252 Mass. 423 (1925)
  6. Maker v. Bouthier242 Mass. 20 (1922)

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