Commonwealth v. Blood

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Blood

97 Mass. 538

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 97 Mass. 538 (Commonwealth v. Blood) 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

Commonwealth v. Blood, 97 Mass. 538 (Mass. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Coükt.

The paper offered as a record was not admissible. There was no proof that the court in California had jurisdiction of the cause and the parties. Although a court of record, its jurisdiction over the subject of divorce is a special authority not recognized by the common law, and its proceedings in relation to it stand on the same footing with those of courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction; so that its powers in the case must be shown and appear to have beén strictly pursued. Exceptions overruled».

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

By the Coükt.

The paper offered as a record was not admissible. There was no proof that the court in California had jurisdiction of the cause and the parties. Although a court of record, its jurisdiction over the subject of divorce is a special authority not recognized by the common law, and its proceedings in relation to it stand on the same footing with those of courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction; so that its powers in the case must be shown and appear to have beén strictly pursued. Exceptions overruled».

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 Mass. 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-blood-mass-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack