Harding v. Downs
This text of 110 Mass. 56 (Harding v. Downs) 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
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the judgment of the Police Court of Lee, by which costs were accorded to the defendant on the plaintiff’s failure to enter the writ in this case in that court. It is not open to the plaintiff to object to this allowance that the writ waa defective in not containing a declaration. It was sufficient to require the defendant’s appearance at court, even if it might after appearance have been dismissed on his motion.
The motion for costs filed in the Police Court, with the copy of the writ upon which the defendant was arrested, was sufficient in form to give the court jurisdiction to enter judgment for creta [57]*57on a failure to enter the writ. Ho particular formality is required; it is enough if the fact of the service of the writ is alleged and the writ sufficiently described. Gen. Sts. e. 120, § 12; c. 116, §§ 10,11. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
110 Mass. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-downs-mass-1872.