Clay v. Barlow
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writ, dated February 21,1876, returnable to the Superior Court, and describing each party as having his usual place of business in Boston in the County of Suffolk, and the cause of action thus; “ In an action of contract or tort. To the damage of the plaintiff (as he says) the sum of five hundred dollars.”
Read the full summary
Writ, dated February 21,1876, returnable to the Superior Court, and describing each party as having his usual place of business in Boston in the County of Suffolk, and the cause of action thus; “ In an action of contract or tort. To the damage of the plaintiff (as he says) the sum of five hundred dollars.” The declaration filed with the writ contained a single count upon an account annexed for $81 for goods sold on December 21, 1875. In the Superior Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the writ, for the following reasons: “ 1st. This court has no jurisdiction of the cause of action, the…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
The words “debt or damages demanded,” in the St. of 1875, e. 106, § 1, regulating the jurisdiction of the municipal courts of Boston, as in other statutes of the Commonwealth, defining the jurisdiction of courts by like words, refer to the ad damnum in the writ, and not to the amount claimed in the declaration or proved at the trial. Chamberlain v. Cochran, 8 Pick. 522. Hapgood v. Doherty, 8 Gray, 373. Trees v. Rushworth, 9 Gray, 47. Ladd v. Kimball, 12 Gray, 139. Ashuelot Bank v. Pearson, 14 Gray, 521.
The other objection, so far as it relates to the writ, was for a defect of form in process,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Clerk of the Third District CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Moreno v. MartínezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1908
- Oppenheim v. Popper-Morson Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1941
- Wright v. Potomska Mills Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885