Bartlett v. Brickett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of a leather trunk and its contents, described as “ belonging to Charles Bartlett, Joseph Goodrich and James H. "Smiley of said Haverhill, the Trustees of the Ministerial Fund in the North Parish in Haverhill.” Writ dated March 12th 1866 In the subsequent portions of the writ, the plaintiffs were referred to as “ the said trustees ” and “ the said plaintiffs.”
Read the full summary
Replevin of a leather trunk and its contents, described as “ belonging to Charles Bartlett, Joseph Goodrich and James H. "Smiley of said Haverhill, the Trustees of the Ministerial Fund in the North Parish in Haverhill.” Writ dated March 12th 1866 In the subsequent portions of the writ, the plaintiffs were referred to as “ the said trustees ” and “ the said plaintiffs.” In the bond the plaintiffs were at the commencement of it described in the same way first above mentioned, and were referred to in the condition as “ the above bounden Charles Bartlett, Joseph Goodrich and James H. Smiley,…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The court are all of opinion that the ruling at the trial that the action was not brought in the name of the corporation owning the property replevied, but in the name of the three plaintiffs named and described as trustees, was correct, and that the verdict tor the defendant was rightly ordered. *64There is nothing in the writ to indicate that the plaintiffs were a corporation, or that any corporation was a party to the suit. The plaintiffs are severally named, with their place of residence. It is true they are there described as the trustees of a Ministerial Fund, and that the corporate name…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bruce v. LearnedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808