Howard v. Mitchell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and holding her out of the possession thereof from January 1, 1811, until October 23, 1815. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that one Hannah James was co-tenant with the plaintiff of the locus in quo, and that she, the plaintiff, has no title therein, except as tenant in common with the said Hannah, on which issue was joined.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and holding her out of the possession thereof from January 1, 1811, until October 23, 1815. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that one Hannah James was co-tenant with the plaintiff of the locus in quo, and that she, the plaintiff, has no title therein, except as tenant in common with the said Hannah, on which issue was joined. At the trial of this issue, before Wilde, J., at the last October term in Plymouth, the defendant offered evidence * to prove, and did prove, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the said…
1Per curiam
The writ on which the former judgment was founded was tested in 1813 ; of course, the judgment could not conclude the defendant for any time prior to that date. So neither could it conclude him for any time subsequent to the recovery ; as the plaintiff * might have aliened the premises, or part of them, after that time.
But it is not necessary to consider whether this judgment might have estopped the defendant at all, or for what part of the time laid in the present declaration; because it is very clear that it cannot so operate, as these pleadings stand. The plaintiff should have replied it…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Foye v. PatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Browne v. MoranMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Clark v. BaranowskiOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Gray v. GillilanIllinois Supreme Court · 1854
- Sheldon v. PattersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.