Oystead v. Shed

Decided October 15, 1811

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1811-10-15

In this case, the plaintiff had endorsed the original writ, not having at that time any fixed place of residence within the commonwealth; and since the commencement of the action he had absconded and left the state. The defendants moved that a new endorser should now be fur- ' mshed, who should be sufficient to respond to the defendants their costs, in case they should have judgment for them.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1762

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1811-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court.

¶1Let the allegations be verified by affidavit, and then a new endorser must be procured. The case is within the equity of the statute, (1) which, when it provides that the writ shall be endorsed by the plaintiff, must intend such an endorser as can be found.

¶2Stat. 1784, c. 28, § 11.