Thompson v. Cowell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Thompson v. Cowell

20 N.E. 170, 148 Mass. 552, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 322

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 20 N.E. 170 (Thompson v. Cowell) 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

Thompson v. Cowell, 20 N.E. 170, 148 Mass. 552, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 322 (Mass. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

This is a petition under the Pub. Sts. c. 176, inserted in a writ of original summons. The writ and petition were duly served upon the respondent by giving him in hand an attested copy, he being at the time of the service commorant of Wrentham, in this Commonwealth. The court thus acquired jurisdiction of his person, and can proceed with the suit and enter a personal judgment against him. Roberts v. Knights, 7 Allen, 449. Peabody v. Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217.

The respondent relies upon the case of Macomber v. Jaffray, 4 Gray, 82. But in that case the respondents all were out of the Commonwealth, and no personal service was or could be made upon them. The court declined to issue an order of notice to them, because they were not personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The suggestion in the opinion, that, if the petition was entertained, “it would deprive the respondent of the election to sue in the Circuit Court of the United States,” does not seem to be well founded, as the court may order the respondent to bring a suit to try the title in any court of competent jurisdiction, or may give the respondent his election to bring it in any such court. Plea overruled.

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

Morton, C. J.

This is a petition under the Pub. Sts. c. 176, inserted in a writ of original summons. The writ and petition were duly served upon the respondent by giving him in hand an attested copy, he being at the time of the service commorant of Wrentham, in this Commonwealth. The court thus acquired jurisdiction of his person, and can proceed with the suit and enter a personal judgment against him. Roberts v. Knights, 7 Allen, 449. Peabody v. Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217.

The respondent relies upon the case of Macomber v. Jaffray, 4 Gray, 82. But in that case the respondents all were out of the Commonwealth, and no personal service was or could be made upon them. The court declined to issue an order of notice to them, because they were not personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The suggestion in the opinion, that, if the petition was entertained, “it would deprive the respondent of the election to sue in the Circuit Court of the United States,” does not seem to be well founded, as the court may order the respondent to bring a suit to try the title in any court of competent jurisdiction, or may give the respondent his election to bring it in any such court. Plea overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.E. 170, 148 Mass. 552, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-cowell-mass-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack