Belcher v. Sheehan
| Decision Date | 25 June 1898 |
| Citation | 171 Mass. 513,51 N.E. 19 |
| Parties | BELCHER v. SHEEHAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Charles
E. Allen, for plaintiff.
J.L. Powers and C.W. Cushing, for defendant.
As Curtis, when the plaintiff brought the action against him, was a resident of the state of New York, and had no place of business, or last and usual place of abode, in this commonwealth, and was not served with process, and did not appear in the action, and as no attachment was made upon his property within the commonwealth, the judgment rendered against him is void; and Curtis, if sued on the judgment, could avoid it by plea and proof. Needham v. Thayer, 147 Mass. 536, 18 N.E. 429; Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87, 28 N.E. 6; Kimball v. Sweet, 168 Mass. 105, 46 N.E. 409. As Curtis was described in the writ as "of Everett, in the county of Middlesex, having his usual place of business in said Boston," it may be that the execution delivered to the defendant appeared to be regular and valid on its face. A copy of the execution is not before us. The extent to which an officer is protected in the service of process which is regular and valid on its face has been recently considered in this court, in Tellefsen v. Fee, 168 Mass. 188, 46 N.E. 562. It is unnecessary to determine whether, if the defendant had arrested Curtis on the execution, the process would have protected him. The defendant neglected to arrest him, and in an action to recover damages for such neglect it is open to the defendant to prove that the judgment and execution were in fact absolutely void. Albee v. Ward, 8 Mass. 79, 86; Hitchcock v. Baker, 2 Allen, 431; 1 Freem. Ex'ns (2d Ed.) § 103. Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hardison
...... whether we have jurisdiction, before taking affirmative. action. Action of a court that has no jurisdiction is void. Belcher v. Sheehan, 171 Mass. 513, 51 N.E. 19, 68. Am. St. Rep. 445. . . The. first suggestion is that the Legislature could not give ......
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hardison, Ins. Com'r.
...we have jurisdiction, before taking affirmative action. Action of a court that has no jurisdiction is void. Belcher v. Sheehan, 171 Mass. 513, 51 N. E. 19,68 Am. St. Rep. 445. The first suggestion is that the Legislature could not give the Insurance Commissioner power to pass upon the forms......
- Thomas v. Crosby
-
Thomas v. Crosby
...the provision for the conveyance of the corpus of the trust to her heirs took effect, and should leave issue, and her mother should [171 Mass. 513]survive her father, such issue would not be beneficiaries under the trust; or whether, on the death of Mary E. Thomas and of Fannie E. Fiske, he......