Haywood v. Main

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Haywood v. Main

35 Mass. 226

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 23, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Mass. 226 (Haywood v. Main) 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

Haywood v. Main, 35 Mass. 226 (Mass. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The statute of 1833 is peremptory, requiring an indorser when the petitioner is not an inhabitant of this Commonwealth. The proviso in the 6th section, saving cases where rights and liabilities were established, applies not to cases where a right to file a petition existed, but rights and liabilities arising under writs and petitions pending when the act went into operation in May, 1833. This petition being filed after that time, it fell within the rule and was not saved by the proviso, and therefore the petition cannot be sustained.

The provision, Revised Stat. c. 90, § 10, authorizing the Court in all cases to require an indorser does not apply, because, in the case of a petitioner from out of the State, the statute is imperative.

The Court are all of opinion, that the order to dismiss the petition for want of an indorsement, was right and must be affirmed.

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

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The statute of 1833 is peremptory, requiring an indorser when the petitioner is not an inhabitant of this Commonwealth. The proviso in the 6th section, saving cases where rights and liabilities were established, applies not to cases where a right to file a petition existed, but rights and liabilities arising under writs and petitions pending when the act went into operation in May, 1833. This petition being filed after that time, it fell within the rule and was not saved by the proviso, and therefore the petition cannot be sustained.

The provision, Revised Stat. c. 90, § 10, authorizing the Court in all cases to require an indorser does not apply, because, in the case of a petitioner from out of the State, the statute is imperative.

The Court are all of opinion, that the order to dismiss the petition for want of an indorsement, was right and must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Mass. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haywood-v-main-mass-1836.