Pierce v. Oliver
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a petition for partition, in which the petitioner alleges himself seized of certain lands in the County of Oxford, in common with others to him unknown, and was originally presented to the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, in that county, who ordered notice in some public newspaper, pursuant to the provision of the statute of 1783, c. 41, § 3. No respondent appearing upon such notice, and proclamation being made, commissioners were appointed to make partition as prayed…
Read the full summary
This was a petition for partition, in which the petitioner alleges himself seized of certain lands in the County of Oxford, in common with others to him unknown, and was originally presented to the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, in that county, who ordered notice in some public newspaper, pursuant to the provision of the statute of 1783, c. 41, § 3. No respondent appearing upon such notice, and proclamation being made, commissioners were appointed to make partition as prayed for. Upon the return of their doings being offered for acceptance, J. Holmes, as attorney to Oliver Sf al., filed a…
1Opinion of the Court
*By the Court.
The question to be decided by us in this case is, whether the respondents, who were admitted to enter their appearance in that character in the Court of Common Pleas, were legally entitled to appeal from the order of that Court accepting the return of the commissioners who had been appointed to make partition. We think the Common Pleas were justified in refusing to allow the appeal. The statute seems decisive, that the respondents shall have no appeal from the judgment accepting the order of the commissioners, so as to call in question the first judg ment, that partition shall…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Nash v. ChurchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Weeks v. EdwardsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900