Sherman v. Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Heckscher v. Binney (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1847)
- Hennessey v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. (Mass. App. Ct. 2005)
- Gans v. Beasley (N.D. 1894)
- Hoffield v. Board of Education (Kan. 1885)
- Kimball & Austin Manufacturing Co. v. Vroman (Mich. 1877)
- Noblet v. Ohio & M. R. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio 1876)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The first corporation was dead, and the new one was created for the same purpose and object. The writ was served on the clerk of the existing corporation, by which regular notice was given the real proprietors of the bridge. This is, then, the common case of a misnomer. The amendment may be made, on the common rule of an election by the defendants of the costs of the action to this time, or a continuance,
Burnham vs. Savings Bank, 5 N. H. R. 573. — 1 Chitty, 282, 486, 5th ed.—1 B. & P. 40 —3 Anst. 935.—3 Camp. 29. —16 East, 110.—6 M. & S. 45.—10 Mass. Rep. 203. — Denny & Al. vs. Ward, 3 Pick. 199. — Bullard vs. Nantucket Bank, 25 Mass. Rep. 99.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.