A. Sandler Co. v. Portland Shoe Manufacturing Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

A. Sandler Co. v. Portland Shoe Manufacturing Co.

291 Mass. 326

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 26, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 291 Mass. 326 (A. Sandler Co. v. Portland Shoe Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Sandler Co. v. Portland Shoe Manufacturing Co., 291 Mass. 326 (Mass. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Qua, J.

This action was brought by a trustee writ. When it was entered the declaration contained two counts. The first count was for libel. The second count, we will assume in favor of the plaintiff, but without deciding, was for malicious interference with the procuring of a contract and not for libel. After the entry of the writ and before the defendant had appeared, the plaintiff procured ex parte the allowance of a substitute declaration in a single count which we will likewise assume was not for libel. A motion by the defendant to dismiss was denied, but thereafter, during the trial of the case on the merits before another judge, a second motion to dismiss was allowed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the case.

The ruling was right. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 246, § 1, forbids the commencing of an action for libel by trustee process. At the time it was entered and therefore by necessary intendment at the time it was commenced, this was an action for libel. The second count cannot save it. It was still an action for libel, even though it may also have been for something else. The court never had jurisdiction to entertain [327]*327the action or to amend the declaration. Guarino v. Russo, 215 Mass. 83. MacCormac v. Hannan, 248 Mass. 86. Poorvu v. Weisberg, 286 Mass. 526, 538.

The question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the case, even for the first time at the argument in this court. Cheney v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 227 Mass. 336, 338.

Order dismissing action affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Qua, J.

This action was brought by a trustee writ. When it was entered the declaration contained two counts. The first count was for libel. The second count, we will assume in favor of the plaintiff, but without deciding, was for malicious interference with the procuring of a contract and not for libel. After the entry of the writ and before the defendant had appeared, the plaintiff procured ex parte the allowance of a substitute declaration in a single count which we will likewise assume was not for libel. A motion by the defendant to dismiss was denied, but thereafter, during the trial of the case on the merits before another judge, a second motion to dismiss was allowed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the case.

The ruling was right. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 246, § 1, forbids the commencing of an action for libel by trustee process. At the time it was entered and therefore by necessary intendment at the time it was commenced, this was an action for libel. The second count cannot save it. It was still an action for libel, even though it may also have been for something else. The court never had jurisdiction to entertain [327]*327the action or to amend the declaration. Guarino v. Russo, 215 Mass. 83. MacCormac v. Hannan, 248 Mass. 86. Poorvu v. Weisberg, 286 Mass. 526, 538.

The question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the case, even for the first time at the argument in this court. Cheney v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 227 Mass. 336, 338.

Order dismissing action affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 Mass. 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-sandler-co-v-portland-shoe-manufacturing-co-mass-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack