Harding v. Downs

Decided September 15, 1872

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1872-09-15

The motion on which this judgment was made was as follows : “ May 1, 1871. And now the defendant comes into court and says that he has been arrested in an action of contract by the said plaintiff and commanded and summoned to appear in this court, on this first day of May instant. Whereúpon this said defendant prays for his costs in this behalf by him sustained.” The writ on which the defendant was arrested, and a copy of which was filed in court, contained no declaration.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1891

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Colt, J.

¶1The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the judgment of the Police Court of Lee, by which costs were accorded to the defendant on the plaintiff’s failure to enter the writ in this case in that court. It is not open to the plaintiff to object to this allowance that the writ waa defective in not containing a declaration. It was sufficient to require the defendant’s appearance at court, even if it might after appearance have been dismissed on his motion.

¶2The motion for costs filed in the Police Court, with the copy of the writ upon which the defendant was arrested, was sufficient in form to give the court jurisdiction to enter judgment for creta *57on a failure to enter the writ. Ho particular formality is required; it is enough if the fact of the service of the writ is alleged and the writ sufficiently described. Gen. Sts. e. 120, § 12; c. 116, §§ 10,11. Judgment affirmed.