Achorn v. Matthews

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Achorn v. Matthews

38 Me. 173

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 Me. 173 (Achorn v. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Achorn v. Matthews, 38 Me. 173 (Me. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Tenney, J.

— The only question presented in this case, is whether the Judge erred in refusing to quash the writ, on account of the name of the justice of the*peace .not having been affixed thereto, in his own handwriting, but having been done by his authority.

The Court may ex officio quash a writ, which upon its face is bad. Cooke v. Gibbs, 3 Mass. 193. But he may in the exercise of his discretion refuse to do so, upon motion like that presented in this case, and exceptions do not lie. Richardson v. Bachelder, 19 Maine, 82.

Report dismissed.

Rice, Cutting and Appleton, J. J.; concurred.

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

Tenney, J.

— The only question presented in this case, is whether the Judge erred in refusing to quash the writ, on account of the name of the justice of the*peace .not having been affixed thereto, in his own handwriting, but having been done by his authority.

The Court may ex officio quash a writ, which upon its face is bad. Cooke v. Gibbs, 3 Mass. 193. But he may in the exercise of his discretion refuse to do so, upon motion like that presented in this case, and exceptions do not lie. Richardson v. Bachelder, 19 Maine, 82.

Report dismissed.

Rice, Cutting and Appleton, J. J.; concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Me. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/achorn-v-matthews-me-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack