Palmer v. Crosby

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Palmer v. Crosby

77 Mass. 46

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 77 Mass. 46 (Palmer v. Crosby) 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

Palmer v. Crosby, 77 Mass. 46 (Mass. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Thomas, J.

1. The receipt should have been admitted as evidence of the delivery of the property. It was also competent as part of the transaction of sale.

2. The execution under which the defendants justified recited the judgment to have been recovered before Rodney Hill as a “ trial justice ” against “ Samuel Deering.” The plaintiff objected to its admission ; but the objection was overruled. The execution should have been excluded. It purports to be on a judgment recovered before a tribunal which then had no existence ; for the Si. of 1850, c. 314, had been repealed by St. 1851, c. 328; and the St. of 1858, c. 138, had not been passed. It was an impossible judgment. The execution was bad upon its face, and gave no authority to the officer to seize the property.

Whether the fact that the execution was against Samuel Deering instead of Samuel L. Deering would be fatal of itself, it is not- necessary to inquire. Exceptions sustained.

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

Thomas, J.

1. The receipt should have been admitted as evidence of the delivery of the property. It was also competent as part of the transaction of sale.

2. The execution under which the defendants justified recited the judgment to have been recovered before Rodney Hill as a “ trial justice ” against “ Samuel Deering.” The plaintiff objected to its admission ; but the objection was overruled. The execution should have been excluded. It purports to be on a judgment recovered before a tribunal which then had no existence ; for the Si. of 1850, c. 314, had been repealed by St. 1851, c. 328; and the St. of 1858, c. 138, had not been passed. It was an impossible judgment. The execution was bad upon its face, and gave no authority to the officer to seize the property.

Whether the fact that the execution was against Samuel Deering instead of Samuel L. Deering would be fatal of itself, it is not- necessary to inquire. Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Mass. 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-crosby-mass-1858.