Gage v. Gannet
10 Mass. 176
Opinion
It does not appear, on the face of the record before us, that the county is directly interested. But the defendants have waived this exception, by appearing and pleading to the action in the court below. It is true that in Prince’s case there was also an appearance for the defendant; but there the defect of jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the record,
Motion overruled.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gage v. Gannet, 10 Mass. 176 (Mass. 1813).
10 Mass. 176 (Gage v. Gannet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bigger v. Dougherty
211 P. 644 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1922)
Crocker v. Justices of the Superior Court
94 N.E. 369 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
McInerny v. Samuels
125 Mass. 425 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Hanson v. Hoitt
14 N.H. 56 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1843)
Simonds v. Parker
42 Mass. 508 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1840)
Upham v. Bradley
17 Me. 423 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1840)
Carlisle v. Weston
38 Mass. 535 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1839)
Gardner v. Barker
12 Mass. 36 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1815)