Pierce v. Lamper

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Pierce v. Lamper

6 N.E. 223, 141 Mass. 20, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 113

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 6 N.E. 223 (Pierce v. Lamper) 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

Pierce v. Lamper, 6 N.E. 223, 141 Mass. 20, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 113 (Mass. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

At the calling of the docket at the beginning of the December term, 1882, in the Superior Court, this action was dismissed under the fifty-fourth rule of that court. On the last day of said term the usual general order was passed, “ that judgment be entered in all cases ripe for judgment, and that all matters pending and not passed upon be continued to the next term of this court.”

Under this order, it was the duty of the clerk to enter judgment in this case according to the order of the court made at the calling of the docket. Such judgment is deemed in law to [23]*23have been entered on the last day of the term, and was a final disposition of the case. During the term the court might have vacated the order dismissing the action; but, after the entry of judgment at the end of the term, the plaintiffs remedy, if any, was by a writ of review, or by a petition to vacate the judgment, which must be filed within a year after the judgment. Pub. Sts. e. 187, §§ 16-25.

The Superior Court had no power in this case, upon a petition filed more than a year after the judgment, to vacate the judgment and bring the case forward upon the docket. Mason v. Pearson, 118 Mass. 61. Blanchard v. Ferdinand, 132 Mass. 389. It follows that the Superior Court has now no jurisdiction of the action, and that it should be dismissed.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Morton, C. J.

At the calling of the docket at the beginning of the December term, 1882, in the Superior Court, this action was dismissed under the fifty-fourth rule of that court. On the last day of said term the usual general order was passed, “ that judgment be entered in all cases ripe for judgment, and that all matters pending and not passed upon be continued to the next term of this court.”

Under this order, it was the duty of the clerk to enter judgment in this case according to the order of the court made at the calling of the docket. Such judgment is deemed in law to [23]*23have been entered on the last day of the term, and was a final disposition of the case. During the term the court might have vacated the order dismissing the action; but, after the entry of judgment at the end of the term, the plaintiffs remedy, if any, was by a writ of review, or by a petition to vacate the judgment, which must be filed within a year after the judgment. Pub. Sts. e. 187, §§ 16-25.

The Superior Court had no power in this case, upon a petition filed more than a year after the judgment, to vacate the judgment and bring the case forward upon the docket. Mason v. Pearson, 118 Mass. 61. Blanchard v. Ferdinand, 132 Mass. 389. It follows that the Superior Court has now no jurisdiction of the action, and that it should be dismissed.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.E. 223, 141 Mass. 20, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-lamper-mass-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack