Holbrook v. Murray
New York Supreme Court
Error from the New-Vork common pleas. The declaration was in debt on a judgment obtained in the common pleas of Suffolk, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Read the full summary
Error from the New-Vork common pleas. The declaration was in debt on a judgment obtained in the common pleas of Suffolk, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The defendants jointly put in a plea like the first plea in the cause of Starbuck and others v. J. B. Murray, ante, 148. J. B. Murray put in a plea for himself, and also another that the suit in which the judgment was rendered was commenced by attachment of certain goods and chattels then being in Boston, in the state of Massachusetts; that no process of any kind was served upon him; that he had not at the time of the commencement of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Marcy, J.
The first and second pleas are bad for the reasons assigned in adjudging the first pleas insufficient in the case of Starbuck and others v. Murray, ante, 148. The third plea, however, appears to me to contain enough to shew that the court in Massachusetts had not jurisdiction of the person of J. B. Murray. The difference between this plea and the second plea in Starbuck and others v. Murray is, that this plea does not deny that the defendant did not either in person or by attorney appear to the suit; but seems to me that the allegations that no process was served on him,…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Harris v. HardemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Anderson v. HubbleIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Contakis v. FlavioMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Tarbox v. HaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Farrell v. CalkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1851
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.