Krasnow v. Krasnow

Oct 27, 1925
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Rugg
Rugg, C.J.

This case comes before us on exceptions of the defendant to the denial of ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍his motion for a directed verdict and to the order directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. At the trial no ground of exception was requested or stated. ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍Every ground therefore is open. Proctor v. Dillon, 235 Mass. 538, 540. The action is on a promissory note dated April 5, 1923, due in three months. It became due on July 5, ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍1923, and the maker was entitled to the whole of that day in which to pay the note. The writ was dated on July 5,1923. The action was ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍prematurely brought. The motion for a directed verdict ought to have been granted on this ground. G. L. c. 107, § 109. Estes v. Tower, 102 Mass. 65. The date of the writ in absence ‍‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‍of evidence must be presumed to be the commencement of the action. Rosenblatt v. Foley, 252 Mass. 188.

Exceptions sustained.