Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 R.I. 450

Dunn v. Ball

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided August 15, 1853

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · decided 1853-08-15

<p>Where the writ served in a cause has not been returned ihto Court, the Court have no jurisdiction over the cause, and cannot give the defendant who has answered the suit judgment for costs.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1956

4 state decisions

2018531860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1This was an action of trespass. The writ issued from the Court of Common Pleas for the May Term, 1852, and was served on the defendants, but never returned into Court. At the May Term the declaration was duly filed, together with a copy of the writ, certified by the officer who served the same, to be a true copy of the writ which had been served, and the entry fee was paid. The defendants appeared, and had leave to answer, on the second day of the term, under an order that the pleas should be filed within ninety days, and the case was continued upon the plaintiff’s affidavit. At the November Term the case was assigned for trial, and it was then suggested by the plaintiff that it could not be tried, because the writ had never been returned into the Court. The Court ordered the cause to be dismissed; and, thereupon, the counsel for the defendants moved for judgment *451for costs, and the Court overruled the motion, because, .the action not having been regularly entered, the Court had no jurisdiction to render any judgment on the same. The defendants, having excepted to this ruling, now asked this Court that judgment might be entered for their costs in the cause, But the Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, overruled the exceptions, and sustained the ruling of the Court below.

Hayes, for the plaintiff.Turner and Sheffield, for the defendant.
/2/ri/450 · .json · Public domain