Carroll v. Richardson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The plaintiffs in error brought their writ, in this case, to reverse a judgment which the defendant in error, as treasurer of the Norfolk and Bristol Turnpike Corporation, recovered against them at the Circuit Court of Common Pleas holden for this county, December, 1811 The- original action, which was commenced before a justice of the peace for this county, was trespass, “ for that, by an act of this commonwealth, entitled an act establishing the Norfolk and Bristol Turnpike…
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs in error brought their writ, in this case, to reverse a judgment which the defendant in error, as treasurer of the Norfolk and Bristol Turnpike Corporation, recovered against them at the Circuit Court of Common Pleas holden for this county, December, 1811 The- original action, which was commenced before a justice of the peace for this county, was trespass, “ for that, by an act of this commonwealth, entitled an act establishing the Norfolk and Bristol Turnpike Corporation, (1) among other things it is enacted, that if any person shall forcibly pass, or attempt to pass, either…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
We are all of opinion that error does not lie upon a *298judgment rendered on a case stated by the parties for the opinion of the Court. If either party intends or expects to bring a writ of error, and wishes the facts spread upon the record, it will behave him to have the facts found by the jury in a special verdict, as the English practice is. The consent of parties cannot give to this Court a jurisdiction in a case where the law has not conferred it. The plaintiffs in error can therefore take nothing by their writ.
A point was suggested as to the manner of bringing the original action,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Elliott v. MontellSupreme Court of Delaware · 1885