Humphry v. Strong
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This writ of error was brought to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Common Pleas for this county, rendered upon the report of referees appointed under the statute of 1786, c. 21. The referees made their report to the Common 'Pleas, June term, 1817, awarding tw7enty-five dollars to the said Strong.
Read the full summary
This writ of error was brought to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Common Pleas for this county, rendered upon the report of referees appointed under the statute of 1786, c. 21. The referees made their report to the Common 'Pleas, June term, 1817, awarding tw7enty-five dollars to the said Strong. The said Humphry objected to the acceptance of the report, because the demand annexed to the rule was not signed by Strong.' The demand annexed to the rule was thus:—“ Thomas B. Strong claims damages of Major Gad Humphry, two hundred dollars, for trespass committed by his dog in killing…
1Per curiam
The demand annexed was m the hand-writing of the party claiming it, and the name was written by himself, although not subscribed to the demand. We think this a sufficient compliance with the statute, which does not require subscribing; and if it did, it would be too close a construction, to reject this demand, actually made out by the party himself, in his own hand-writing
*228The case of Mansfield vs. Doughty is not like this; for in that case it does not appear that * the party’s name was used at all, or that the demand was in his handwriting. For aught that appears, it might, have been a mere…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bailey v. AckermanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1874
- Bullard v. CoolidgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Chase v. SparhawkSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850