Gould v. Barnard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a writ of replevin, to which the defendant pleaded, in abatement, that, at the time of the service of the writ, it was not endorsed by any responsible person with his Christian and surname, as the law requires. To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer.
1Opinion of the Court
Parker, J.,
thought it an unnecessary provision of the law that writs of replevin should be endorsed, in addition to the ample bonds required to be given to the sheriff, to secure to the defendant his eventual damages and costs. But the statute was express that all original writs should be endorsed. It was impossible to get over it. There was no place for argument or construction, where a statute was so intelligible and so positive. It was his opinion that the writ must abate.
Sedgwick, J.,
said he had no doubt upon the question; and he was always happy when he found the rule of law plain, and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hill v. BloomerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1844
- Judson v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1851
- Judson v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1851
- Millett v. SouleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1926
- Probate Court of Hopkinton v. LamphearSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.