Harding v. Riley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Harding v. Riley

63 N.E. 883, 181 Mass. 334, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 853

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 20, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.E. 883 (Harding v. Riley) 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

Harding v. Riley, 63 N.E. 883, 181 Mass. 334, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 853 (Mass. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

After a verdict for the plaintiff in an action of contract, and before judgment, the officer who attached certain property on mesne process moved to amend his return on the writ by adding thereto certain charges and fees for the care and custody of the property. The defendant objected on two grounds, first .that the officer could not charge any of the fees on the amended return, secondly, that the sale was illegal because delayed too long; and asked the judge so to rule. The judge refused so to rule, and allowed the motion; and the case is before us on an appeal and a bill of exceptions.

We are of opinion that the questions sought to be raised by the defendant are not properly before us. There can be no question that it was within the power of the court to allow the officer to amend his return, especially where, as here, the amendment related to matters which had occurred after the entry of the writ. The proper amount to be allowed is to be determined, in the first instance, by the clerk on the taxation of costs. From his decision an appeal will lie to a judge of the Superior Court: and from his ruling on a matter of law an appeal will lie to this court, or the questions of law may be brought here on a bill of exceptions. Cutter v. Howe, 122 Mass. 541. Clark v. Gamwell, 125 Mass. 428. Carroll v. Daly, 162 Mass. 427. Rogers v. Simmons, 155 Mass. 259, 261.

Appeal dismissed; exceptions overruled.

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

Lathrop, J.

After a verdict for the plaintiff in an action of contract, and before judgment, the officer who attached certain property on mesne process moved to amend his return on the writ by adding thereto certain charges and fees for the care and custody of the property. The defendant objected on two grounds, first .that the officer could not charge any of the fees on the amended return, secondly, that the sale was illegal because delayed too long; and asked the judge so to rule. The judge refused so to rule, and allowed the motion; and the case is before us on an appeal and a bill of exceptions.

We are of opinion that the questions sought to be raised by the defendant are not properly before us. There can be no question that it was within the power of the court to allow the officer to amend his return, especially where, as here, the amendment related to matters which had occurred after the entry of the writ. The proper amount to be allowed is to be determined, in the first instance, by the clerk on the taxation of costs. From his decision an appeal will lie to a judge of the Superior Court: and from his ruling on a matter of law an appeal will lie to this court, or the questions of law may be brought here on a bill of exceptions. Cutter v. Howe, 122 Mass. 541. Clark v. Gamwell, 125 Mass. 428. Carroll v. Daly, 162 Mass. 427. Rogers v. Simmons, 155 Mass. 259, 261.

Appeal dismissed; exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.E. 883, 181 Mass. 334, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-riley-mass-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack