Thompson v. Hoskins
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, in which the defendants were charged with entering upon the plaintiffs’ close, and setting fire to the trees thereon growing, &c.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, in which the defendants were charged with entering upon the plaintiffs’ close, and setting fire to the trees thereon growing, &c. At the trial upon the general issue, it appearing that the plaintiffs were tenants in common of the locus in quo, in the proportion of two fifth parts of the whole, the other owners not being named in the writ, the defendants’ counsel objected to the action, and insisted that the plaintiffs ought to be nonsuited. But this was overruled by the judge who sat in the trial; and the jury were instructed that, if they…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
We are all of opinion that the decision of the judge at the trial was correct, and that this matter ought to have been pleaded in abatement, in order to avail the defendants.
Authorities, which abundantly settle this point, are cited by Sergeant Williams in his edition of Saunders’s Reports, in a note to the case of Cabell vs. Vaughan. (1) In all cases of tort, one part owner of the property injured may maintain his action for the injury done to him, unless the defendant should take advantage of the omission by plea in abatement.
This doctrine is not confined to injuries to personal property;…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Converse v. SymmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by14 opinions
- Anderson v. AchesonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Hart v. FitzgeraldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Cherry v. Canal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- May v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Edwards v. HillIllinois Supreme Court · 1849
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.