Southwoth v. Bradford
5 Mass. 524
Opinion
The statute requires the report to be made at the next term, and in that case the Common Pleas are authorized to enter judgment. By the delay of making the report, whether through accident or design is immaterial, the rule became ipso facto discharged, the judgment was rendered without any legal authority, and it must be reversed. Vide the cases of Durell in error vs. Merrill, 1 Mass. Rep. 411., and Mott in error vs. Anthony, ante, page 489.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Southwoth v. Bradford, 5 Mass. 524 (Mass. 1809).
5 Mass. 524 (Southwoth v. Bradford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mullen Bros. Jewelry, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York
310 N.E.2d 627 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1974)
Meunier's Case
66 N.E.2d 198 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
Loring v. Young
239 Mass. 349 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Harris v. Friend
175 P. 722 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1918)
McConkey v. Pendleton
137 N.W. 1038 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Marx v. Hanthorn
148 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Burbank v. People ex rel. Rumsey
90 Ill. 554 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1878)
Holmes v. Hunt
122 Mass. 505 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)
Rich v. Flanders
39 N.H. 304 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
Adams v. Howe
14 Mass. 340 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1817)
Turner v. Inhabitants of the Second Precinct
7 Mass. 60 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1810)