Leatherbee v. Barrett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Leatherbee v. Barrett

25 N.E. 965, 152 Mass. 532, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 121

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 N.E. 965 (Leatherbee v. Barrett) 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

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

Pincite

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]*533or 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

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]*533or 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 N.E. 965, 152 Mass. 532, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leatherbee-v-barrett-mass-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack