Lord v. Poor
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Replevin for two heifers. The writ was dated Oct. 28, 1842, was served upon the defendant the next day, and was made returnable before a justice of the peace on Nov. 5, 1842. On the return day the defendant appeared, and pleaded in abatement, that by the return upon the writ it did not appear to have been served fourteen days before the day of the Court to which it was made returnable, and that therefore the service was insufficient. This plea was overruled by the justice.
Read the full summary
Replevin for two heifers. The writ was dated Oct. 28, 1842, was served upon the defendant the next day, and was made returnable before a justice of the peace on Nov. 5, 1842. On the return day the defendant appeared, and pleaded in abatement, that by the return upon the writ it did not appear to have been served fourteen days before the day of the Court to which it was made returnable, and that therefore the service was insufficient. This plea was overruled by the justice. The defendant then pleaded the general issue, and filed a brief statement, alleging that he was a constable of the town…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, TenNey J. taking no part in the decision, was drawn up by
Shepley J
It is contended, that the service of a writ of replevin, issued by a justice of the peace, must be made fourteen days before the return day. The statute, c. 116, <§> 6, provides, that “ the writ in civil actions, commenced before a justice of the peace, shall be by a summons, or a capias and attachment; and of the form prescribed in the one hundred and fourteenth chapter, and signed by the justice; and such writ shall be duly served not less than seven nor more than sixty *571days before the day therein…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Partridge v. ArnoldIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Merrill v. HusseySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1906