Lindsay v. Blood

2 Mass. 518
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 15, 1807
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 Mass. 518 (Lindsay v. Blood) 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
Lindsay v. Blood, 2 Mass. 518 (Mass. 1807).

Opinion

By the Court.

Without considering the merits of the replication, the plea in bar is clearly bad. One part of the condition of the bond is that the defendant, who was the plaintiff in replevin, shall prosecute his replevin to final judgment. In this bar he does not allege that he prosecuted his replevin, nor does he plead any excuse or justification for not doing it. Indeed, from the replication, which in this action he has demurred to, it appears that he did not prosecute his replevin to final judgment, but that the defendant in replevin obtained judgment on complaint filed.

As the defendant’s bar is bad, judgment must be rendered that the replication is a good and sufficient answer to it.

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

Related

Gardiner v. McDermott
12 R.I. 206 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1878)
Caldwell v. West
21 N.J.L. 411 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Mass. 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsay-v-blood-mass-1807.