Shields v. LeBrecht

187 N.E.2d 498, 345 Mass. 354, 1963 Mass. LEXIS 666
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 30, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 N.E.2d 498 (Shields v. LeBrecht) 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
Shields v. LeBrecht, 187 N.E.2d 498, 345 Mass. 354, 1963 Mass. LEXIS 666 (Mass. 1963).

Opinion

Wilkins, C.J.

This is a report of the question as to the correctness of the judge’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion [355]*355that the case he removed from the nonjury trial list and placed upon the list of cases for trial by jury. The action was commenced in the Superior Court for Worcester County by writ in contract or tort. The declaration, as filed, contained a count in tort by the female plaintiff for injuries caused by negligence and a count, later waived, by her husband for consequential damages.

Upon the back of the writ were the printed name of the court and the typewritten names of the parties. At the bottom following the printed words “From the office of” there is typewritten “Jacob I. Brier, Esq.” Below this originally was printed, “Plaintiff gives notice that he desires a trial by jury.” This was changed by typing in the italicized letters and by drawing a line in ink through the s at the end of each verb so as to read,1 ‘ Plaintiffs gives notice that they desires a trial by jury.” Below this a dotted line for the name of counsel was left blank. The report states that it is customary in Worcester County for the name of the plaintiff or his attorney to be typewritten or signed in this space.

In denying the motion the judge ruled that “the plaintiff had not originally duly claimed trial by jury by any matter on the back of the writ.” This ruling was erroneous. The intent to claim the constitutional right of jury trial was clearly indicated. Any custom in the particular county is irrelevant. The case is completely covered by Higgins v. Boston Elev. Ry. 214 Mass. 335.

Order denying motion reversed.

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

Related

Stigum v. Skloff
2000 Mass. App. Div. 63 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2000)
Islami v. Needham
648 N.E.2d 778 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 N.E.2d 498, 345 Mass. 354, 1963 Mass. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shields-v-lebrecht-mass-1963.