Octo v. Teahan
| Decision Date | 23 October 1882 |
| Citation | 133 Mass. 430 |
| Parties | Frank Octo v. Michael J. Teahan |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hampden. Replevin of certain personal property. The writ dated March 5, 1881, and returnable to the Superior Court alleged the goods to be of the value of $ 100.
At the trial, it appeared that the value of the property when replevied was $ 28.65; and thereupon, on motion of the defendant, Putnam, J., dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction. Judgment was entered for the defendant; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Judgment affirmed.
H. K. Hawes, for the plaintiff.
R. O. Dwight & P. H. Casey, for the defendant.
In this Commonwealth, an action of replevin for goods cannot be maintained unless the value of the goods exceeds twenty dollars. Gen. Sts. c. 143, § 10. Pub. Sts. c. 184, § 10. King v. Dewey, 11 Cush. 218.
By the General Statutes, the Superior Court had original jurisdiction of all actions of replevin where the value of the goods replevied exceeded twenty dollars; and police courts and justices of the peace had concurrent jurisdiction where the value of the goods did not exceed one hundred dollars. Gen. Sts. c. 114, §§ 3, 4; c. 116, §§ 10, 18; c. 120, § 2.
In 1871, it was provided that the police and municipal courts should have jurisdiction concurrently with the Superior Court of all personal actions and proceedings in civil cases in which the amount demanded, or the value of the property claimed, did not exceed three hundred dollars. St. 1871, c. 144.
In 1877, the Legislature enacted that police and district courts should have original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court of all actions of contract, tort or replevin where the debt or damages demanded, or the value of the property alleged to be detained, was more than twenty and did not exceed three hundred dollars. St. 1877, c. 210.
Under these statutes, if they have not been repealed or controlled by other provisions, it is clear that the Superior Court would have original jurisdiction in all actions of replevin where the value of the goods replevied is more than twenty dollars; that police and district courts have concurrent jurisdiction, within their territorial limits, where the value of the goods does not exceed three hundred dollars; and that trial justices have concurrent jurisdiction where the value of the goods does not exceed one hundred dollars.
But by another statute of 1877, approved and to take effect on the same day with chapter 210 and embodied in chapter 211, the Legislature enacted that trial justices shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions of contract, tort or replevin, where the debt or damages demanded, or value of the property alleged to be detained, does not exceed one hundred dollars, and original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court of actions of contract, tort or replevin where the debt or damages demanded, or the value of the property alleged to be detained, is more than one hundred and does not exceed three hundred dollars. St. 1877, c. 211, § 3.
Whether this statute, though passed on the same day, is to be regarded as a subsequent statute, and as the latest expression of the will of the Legislature, or the two statutes are to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Dean
... ... exceed one hundred dollars, and the Superior Court had ... therefore no jurisdiction of the action. Leonard v ... Hannon, 105 Mass. 113. Octo v ... Teahan, 133 Mass. 430. The action having been ... dismissed for that reason, the defendant moved for an order ... for the return of the ... ...
-
Bossidy v. Branniff
...as in this case the original ad damnum was laid at one hundred dollars, that the Police Court of Lee had no jurisdiction. In Octo v. Teahan, 133 Mass. 430, statutes were considered; and it was held that, in so far as the later statute confers additional powers and jurisdiction upon trial ju......