Boardman v. Jackson
This text of 119 Mass. 161 (Boardman v. Jackson) 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.
Opinion
Upon the allegations of the bill, the defendants Jackson and Byrnes have no title in the premises, and the other defendant is in possession under no other title than a lease from Jackson. The plaintiff’s remedy at law, by writ of entry against Jackson or Byrnes, or both of them, is therefore full, adequate and complete, and this bill cannot be maintained. Brewer v. Stevens, 13 Allen, 346. Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen, 59. Metcalf v. Cady, 8 Allen, 587. Bassett v. Brown, 100 Mass. 355. Suter v. Matthews, 115 Mass. 253. Swamscott Machine Co. v. Perry, ante, 123, Bill dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
119 Mass. 161, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boardman-v-jackson-mass-1875.