Leatherbee v. Barrett

25 N.E. 965, 152 Mass. 532, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 121
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 28, 1890·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 6, require that “ in actions of tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, the place of the alleged trespass shall be designated in the declaration by name, abuttals, or other proper description.” The defendant in the present case did not demur to the declaration, [533] or ask the court to order the plaintiffs to file a statement of any particulars concerning the nature and grounds of the action, pursuant to the Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 61; but at the trial he asked the court to rule that the place was not sufficiently described in the declaration, and this the court refused to do. We cannot say that the defendant was entitled to this ruling as matter of law. See Forbush v. Lombard, 13 Met. 109, 113; Sawyer v. Ryan, 13 Met. 144; Hall v. Mayo, 97 Mass. 416.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Leatherbee v. Barrett, 25 N.E. 965, 152 Mass. 532, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 121 (Mass. 1890).

25 N.E. 965 (Leatherbee v. Barrett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dyecraftsmen, Inc. v. Feinberg
269 N.E.2d 693 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
Foley v. McCarthy
32 N.E. 669 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Edwards v. Woodbury
30 N.E. 175 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)