Holbrook v. Pratt
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
I'his was an action of trespass. The defendant was attached to answer to D. H., of W., in the county of W., and state of Connecticut; for that whereas the defendant at R., in said county, &c. * The defendant demurred generally; and the plaintiff [ * 97 ] joined in demurrer.
Read the full summary
I'his was an action of trespass. The defendant was attached to answer to D. H., of W., in the county of W., and state of Connecticut; for that whereas the defendant at R., in said county, &c. * The defendant demurred generally; and the plaintiff [ * 97 ] joined in demurrer. Two exceptions were taken to the declaration : 1. that there is no positive averment of a trespass committed, but that it is laid by way of recital only, under a quod cum,; 2. that there is a want of venue; the trespass, if any, is laid in Connecticut; “in said county ” must refer to the last antecedent, which is the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
(Dana, C. J., Strong, and Thacher, justices) gave no opinion as to the second exception; but they held the first to be fatal. (1) The counsel for the plaintiff moved to amend; refused; being after joinder in demurrer. (2)
Declaration quashed.
It has since been unanimously decided, and the- opinion of the Court elaborately given by Parsons, C. J., that quod, cum, is bad in trespass only upon special demurrer; post, vol. ii. 358, Coffin vs. Coffin.
See post, vol. ii. 82, Perkins vs. Burbank, where the Court seemed to restrict the rule that amendments and repleaders should not be granted,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Perkins v. BurbankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Bullard v. President of the Nantucket BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Potter v. TitcombSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1831
- Bogart v. M'DonaldNew York Supreme Court · 1801