Campbell v. Stiles
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Before the traverse jury were empanelled, Bliss, of counsel foi the defendant in review, moved for leave to file a plea in abate ment to the writ of review, which was returnable at this term ; expressing an apprehension that by the statute of 1782, c. 11, <§> 6 he should be prevented from filing it after the jury should be empanelled.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
That statute relates wholly to the Courts of Common Pleas. The provision referred to has never been practised upon in this Court. A plea in" abatement may be put in here at any time before an imparlance.
Ashmun,
for the plaintiff in review, suggested that this wis merely a clerical mistake, and moved the Court for * leave to amend the writ, by directing it to the sheriff of Hampden.
The matter pleaded in abatement was, that the writ of review was directed to the sheriff of the county of Franklin only, and had been served and returned by the sheriff of the county of Hampden.
Curia.
This is a…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Hannon v. County of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- O'Loughlin v. BirdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Young v. HosmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Wood v. RossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Pecotte v. OliverIdaho Supreme Court · 1886
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.