Bridge v. Ford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of debt, brought upon a recognizance taken before a justice of the peace. The declaration contained two counts. The first alleged that the defendant, at a day therein mentioned, acknowledged, before the justice, that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of fifty dollars, to be paid on demand ; and that an action had accrued to the plaintiff, to demand and recover the same.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, brought upon a recognizance taken before a justice of the peace. The declaration contained two counts. The first alleged that the defendant, at a day therein mentioned, acknowledged, before the justice, that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of fifty dollars, to be paid on demand ; and that an action had accrued to the plaintiff, to demand and recover the same. The second count stated that on the same day, before the same justice, the defendant appeared, and entered into a recognizance, a copy of which the plaintiff brings into Court, wherein and [ * 642…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
We are satisfied that this declaration is bad for several reasons.
1. It does not appear from any part of the record, of which the recognizance is now a part, that the justice had any jurisdiction in the cause therein referred to. We cannot conjecture * in what manner the process was instituted, or what was [ * 643 ] the cause of it, or whether it was a cause within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. And we cannot presume any thing in favor of the jurisdiction of an inferior magistrate, as it is not general, but given and limited by particular statutes. In the condition of the…
2Cited by55 opinions
- Caffrey v. DudgeonIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Daniel v. SorrellsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Burt v. CassetySupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- People v. KaneNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Chamberlain v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.