Morrill v. Lamson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Scire FACIAS against an attorney at law, as indorser of a writ. At the trial in the Superior Court, it appeared that the defendant made a writ against the plaintiff, a deputy of the sheriff of Essex, in favor of a resident of another State; that on the original writ, under the words “ From the office of,” the name of the defendant was indorsed; that no motion was made for an indorser in the original action; that the defendant caused the action to be entered in court; that…
Read the full summary
Scire FACIAS against an attorney at law, as indorser of a writ. At the trial in the Superior Court, it appeared that the defendant made a writ against the plaintiff, a deputy of the sheriff of Essex, in favor of a resident of another State; that on the original writ, under the words “ From the office of,” the name of the defendant was indorsed; that no motion was made for an indorser in the original action; that the defendant caused the action to be entered in court; that judgment therein was rendered for the present plaintiff; and that an execution for costs issued, which was returned…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The indorsement on the back of the writ, “ From the office of Caleb Lamson,” subjected the defendant to all the legal liabilities of an indorser of the writ, under the Pub. Sts. c. 161, § 24. Wheeler v. Lynde, 1 Allen, 402, and cases cited.
If the second rule of the Superior Court has any application to the case, which we need not decide, it furnishes no defence. The defendant cannot relieve himself from the liability he assumed by indorsing the writ, by showing that, in doing this, he violated his duty to the court. Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Perkins v. BangsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Johnson v. SpragueMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Lisabelle v. HubertSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1902