Moore v. Valda

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Moore v. Valda

7 L.R.A. 396, 23 N.E. 1102, 151 Mass. 363, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 223

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 12, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 L.R.A. 396 (Moore v. Valda) 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

Moore v. Valda, 7 L.R.A. 396, 23 N.E. 1102, 151 Mass. 363, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 223 (Mass. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

If we assume that this appeal is properly before us, the decree of the Superior Court dismissing the petition must be affirmed. It appears that the petitioner has obtained in the Superior Court a judgment against the respondent in an action at law; that this judgment remains unsatisfied; and that the respondent, who is a woman, intends to come within the Commonwealth, and, after remaining a few days, to depart from it. The complaint of the petitioner is, that the statutes which prescribe the proceedings which can be taken against the person of a woman, in order to compel her to satisfy an execution issued on a judgment at law, do not afford an adequate remedy; and he asks that the chancery writ of ne exeat may is§ue, that she may be arrested and compelled to give bail or security that she will pay the judgment. See Pub. Sts. c. 162, §§ 3, 6-17. The statutes must be considered as providing the only remedies which the Legislature intended that a plaintiff should have to enforce an execution at law against the person of a woman, and the writ of ne exeat has never been issued in aid of legal, as distinguished from equitable process, or for the purpose of obtaining security from a defendant in an action at law. 2 Dan. Ch. Pract. (4th Am. ed.) 1698 et seq.

Decree dismissing petition affirmed.

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

By the Court.

If we assume that this appeal is properly before us, the decree of the Superior Court dismissing the petition must be affirmed. It appears that the petitioner has obtained in the Superior Court a judgment against the respondent in an action at law; that this judgment remains unsatisfied; and that the respondent, who is a woman, intends to come within the Commonwealth, and, after remaining a few days, to depart from it. The complaint of the petitioner is, that the statutes which prescribe the proceedings which can be taken against the person of a woman, in order to compel her to satisfy an execution issued on a judgment at law, do not afford an adequate remedy; and he asks that the chancery writ of ne exeat may is§ue, that she may be arrested and compelled to give bail or security that she will pay the judgment. See Pub. Sts. c. 162, §§ 3, 6-17. The statutes must be considered as providing the only remedies which the Legislature intended that a plaintiff should have to enforce an execution at law against the person of a woman, and the writ of ne exeat has never been issued in aid of legal, as distinguished from equitable process, or for the purpose of obtaining security from a defendant in an action at law. 2 Dan. Ch. Pract. (4th Am. ed.) 1698 et seq.

Decree dismissing petition affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 L.R.A. 396, 23 N.E. 1102, 151 Mass. 363, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-valda-mass-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack