Davol v. Davol

13 Mass. 264
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided July 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Parker, C. J.

It appears very clearly, that, when this decree was passed, there was no statute in force, authorizing the allowance of alimony in cases of divorce. The only question, therefore, is, whether it is void, or voidable only by writ of error. * Generally, judgments which are erroneous stand in force and may be executed, or may be enforced by action of debt, until reversed ; and they cannot be avoided on account of error, collaterally or by plea.

But this doctrine is applicable only to judgments of courts which proceed according to the course of the common law ; for on such only will writs of error lie. With respect to judgments of other courts, they may be avoided for error by plea, as is shown in the case of Smith vs. Rice.

Footnotes

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

Davol v. Davol, 13 Mass. 264 (Mass. 1816).

13 Mass. 264 (Davol v. Davol) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pierce v. Pierce
916 N.E.2d 330 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2009)
Gottsegen v. Gottsegen
492 N.E.2d 1133 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)
Gosselin v. Gosselin
294 N.E.2d 555 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1973)
Wilcox v. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum
104 N.E. 624 (New York Court of Appeals, 1914)
Adams v. Holt
100 N.E. 1088 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Parker v. Parker
97 N.E. 988 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Pape v. Pape
35 S.W. 479 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
Kelley v. Kelley
25 L.R.A. 806 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Allen v. Allen
100 Mass. 373 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1868)
Small v. Pennell
31 Me. 267 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1850)
West v. West
2 Mass. 223 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1806)