Putnam v. Bond
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for breaking the plaintiff’s close in Shirley in the county of Middlesex; brought in the superior court for this county.
Read the full summary
Tort for breaking the plaintiff’s close in Shirley in the county of Middlesex; brought in the superior court for this county. Writ dated May 22, 1866. After an affidavit of merits and an answer had been filed, a trial and verdict for the plaintiff had, and the verdict set aside on exceptions and a new trial ordered, the defendant moved, at June term 1869 of the superior court, to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter, and Brigham, C. J., granted the motion, “ not as a matter of discretion, but as a matter of right.” The plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
At common law, the action of trespass quare clausum fregit was local in its character, and could only be prosecuted in the county in which the closb was situated. This rule has been so far modified by legislation, that this kind of action may be commenced by a trustee process returnable in the county where the trustee resides, or it may be brought before a justice of the peace in the county in which the trespasser resides or is found, although the close itself may be in another county. The case at bar, however, comes under the general rule. Gen. Sts. c. 120, § 1; c. 142, §§ 1-4. Way v. Dame,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Morris v. FarringtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Osgood v. City of LynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881