Boardman v. Jackson

119 Mass. 161, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 102
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 19, 1875·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

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

Boardman v. Jackson, 119 Mass. 161, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 102 (Mass. 1875).

119 Mass. 161 (Boardman v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hanscom v. Bourne
177 A. 187 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1935)
Seymour Water Co. v. City of Seymour
70 N.E. 514 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1904)
Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. O'Brien
119 U.S. 99 (Supreme Court, 1886)
Lautz v. Gordon
28 F. 264 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York, 1886)
Robinson v. Robinson
73 Me. 170 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1882)
White v. Thayer
121 Mass. 226 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)