Bossidy v. Branniff
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close. Writ .dated September 2, 1880, and returnable to the Police Court of Lee. The damages were laid at $100. Upon the entry of the writ, the defendant appeared and filed a motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that the Police Court of Lee had no jurisdiction in the case.
Read the full summary
Tort, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close. Writ .dated September 2, 1880, and returnable to the Police Court of Lee. The damages were laid at $100. Upon the entry of the writ, the defendant appeared and filed a motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that the Police Court of Lee had no jurisdiction in the case. A continuance was had, and the plaintiff during the interval filed a motion for leave to amend his writ, by raising the ad damnum from $100 to $200; and, when the case came on again for hearing, the plaintiff’s motion was allowed, and the defendant’s motion was…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The St. of 1877, c. 210, § 4, confers upon district and police courts original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court of all actions of contract, tort or replevin, where the debt or damages demanded, or the value of the property alleged to be detained, is more than twenty and does not exceed three hundred dollars. The St. of 1877, c. 211, § 3, passed on the same day, provides that trial justices shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all actions of contract, tort and replevin where the debt or damages demanded, or value of the property alleged to be detained, does not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Octo v. TeahanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Crimmins v. BoothMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909