Tingley v. Bateman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The plaintiff in this action is named of Providence, in the county of Providence; the defendant, of East Greenwich, in the county of Kent; and Gardner Daggett, the supposed trustee, of Providence, aforesaid, — all within the state of Rhode Island.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff in this action is named of Providence, in the county of Providence; the defendant, of East Greenwich, in the county of Kent; and Gardner Daggett, the supposed trustee, of Providence, aforesaid, — all within the state of Rhode Island. The return upon the writ by a deputy sheriff of this county is, that he had duly served the same on Daggett, by reading it to him in his presence and hearing ; and that Bateman, the principal defendant, was not to be found within his precinct. * The defendant pleaded, in abatement to the writ, [ * 344 ] that at the time of the service of the same,…
1Opinion of the CourtSewall, J.
This plea to the plaintiff’s writ, that all the parties named in the suit were and are inhabitants of the state of Rhode Island, and not within this state, is not in form, and can- [ * 345 ] not avail, as a plea to the jurisdiction of the * Court. (1) The decisions referred to may, perhaps, be justified by the restrictions to which the process to attach in the hands of a trustee was liable under the former statute, and by the limitations of the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States ; and, so viewed, they afford no rule for the case at bar, and, as decisions upon general principles,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lawrence v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Gardner v. BarkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Jacobs v. MellenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
3Cited by47 opinions
- Picquet v. SwanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1828
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. DooleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- Bates v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Wright v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
- Drake v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.