Henshaw v. Savil

114 Mass. 74
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 114 Mass. 74 (Henshaw v. Savil) 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
Henshaw v. Savil, 114 Mass. 74 (Mass. 1873).

Opinion

Wells, J.

The record of the magistrate properly embraced the notice to the creditor and the officer’s return thereon. Upon their regularity his jurisdiction to admit the debtor to his oath depended. Copies thereof, certified by the magistrate, were competent, and the proper mode of proving the facts for the purposes of this case.

It thus appeared that the service of notice, which gave the magistrate apparent jurisdiction, was made upon the creditor’s attorney in Suffolk County. Parol testimony that the service was in fact made in Suffolk County, and that French was not an officer in that county, did not contradict the return, but showed that the person purporting to have made it had no authority to do so, or to serve the notice. The magistrate therefore had no proper jurisdiction, and the discharge of the debtor was invalid.

Verdict set aside.

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

Related

Kalbritan v. Isidor
152 N.E. 48 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Brazill v. Green
137 N.E. 346 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Beard v. Seavey
78 N.E. 123 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
May v. Hammond
15 N.E. 925 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Lowery v. Caldwell
28 N.E. 451 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 Mass. 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henshaw-v-savil-mass-1873.