Cox v. Callender
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of trespass for mesne profits, and came before the Court upon the following case : — The plaintiffs, at the Supreme Judicial Court for this county, March term, 1810, recovered judgment against said Callender for seisin and possession of the premises, whereof the rent is demanded in this action, being twenty-three undivided seventieth parts of the messuage and land described in the declaration.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for mesne profits, and came before the Court upon the following case : — The plaintiffs, at the Supreme Judicial Court for this county, March term, 1810, recovered judgment against said Callender for seisin and possession of the premises, whereof the rent is demanded in this action, being twenty-three undivided seventieth parts of the messuage and land described in the declaration. The judgment was founded on *a writ of entry, in which the plaintiffs declared that said Callender had no entry, but after the disseisin which one Lemuel Cox did to the plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
To maintain trespass, one must have a right of entry, and perhaps an actual entry is necessary. . When a disseisee enters, having a right of entry, he changes the disseisin into a trespass. But on the facts in the present case, it is very clear the plain tiffs cannot maintain their action, (a)
Plaintiffs nonsuit.,) [Vide Fletcher vs. Macfarlane, 12 Mass. Rep. 46.— Taylor vs. Townsend, 8 Mass Rep. 415. — Sed vide Emerson vs. Thompson, 2 Pick. 473. —Ed.]
2Cited by5 opinions
- Codman v. JenkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Huling v. Florida Savings Bank & Real Estate ExchangeSupreme Court of Florida · 1883
- Mead v. West Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1896
- Thomes v. MoodySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834
- Fuhrer v. LangfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881