Rawson v. Dofner

8 N.E. 892, 143 Mass. 76, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 19
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 24, 1886·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The true construction of the record, as amended, of the district court is, that the sureties were sufficient, but that the bond was not approved or disapproved by-said court, as no motion was made by. either party requesting approval or disapproval. This must mean that there was no formal action by the judge, but that the sureties were deemed by him to be sufficient. Construed thus, there was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statutes to give jurisdiction to the Superior .Court. Pub. Sts. c. 155, § 29; c. 154, §§ 39, 52; St. 1882, a. 95.

No other question being presented in the plaintiff’s brief, the entry must be,

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rawson v. Dofner, 8 N.E. 892, 143 Mass. 76, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 19 (Mass. 1886).

8 N.E. 892 (Rawson v. Dofner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shea v. Neponset River Marine & Sportfishing, Inc.
437 N.E.2d 250 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Parke v. Mabee
57 N.E. 355 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Inhabitants of Wellesley v. Washburn
31 N.E. 8 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)