Santom v. Ballard
| Decision Date | 23 October 1882 |
| Citation | 133 Mass. 464 |
| Parties | Joseph Santom v. John S. Ballard |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Worcester. Contract, upon an account annexed, brought in the Central District Court of Worcester. That court gave judgment for the defendant for the costs of suit, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, and, on May 22 1882, he entered into a recognizance to enter and prosecute the appeal, and to satisfy any judgment which might be entered against him on the appeal. The defendant entered a general appearance in the Superior Court, and there moved that the action be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because no bond to the adverse party had been filed by the plaintiff in the court from which the appeal was taken.
Upon hearing of the motion, the Superior Court allowed the same and ordered the action to be dismissed; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Judgment affirmed.
C. F. Stevens, for the plaintiff.
H. F. Harris, for the defendant.
The statutes require that the party appealing in civil proceedings in any municipal, police or district court in the Commonwealth shall, instead of entering into a recognizance, within twenty-four hours after the judgment appealed from, unless the time is extended by the court, file a bond with sufficient surety or sureties to the adverse party, with condition to enter and prosecute his appeal with effect, and to satisfy any judgment which may be entered against him in the Superior Court, upon said appeal, for costs. Pub. Sts. c. 154, § 52; c. 155, § 29. St. 1882, c. 95, § 1. Unless such bond is filed, no appeal can be allowed, but the municipal, police or district court retains jurisdiction of the case, and may proceed to issue execution upon its judgment. And, until the appeal is duly allowed, the Superior Court, sitting as an appellate court, has no jurisdiction of the cause or the subject matter.
The case before us was brought in the Central District Court of Worcester, which rendered judgment against the plaintiff. He claimed an appeal, but did not file the bond as required by law. The Superior Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction of the case, and might dismiss it on its own motion, or on the motion of the appellee, at any time before judgment.
In many cases, where there has been an objection to the jurisdiction because of some irregularity or defect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Assessors of City of Boston v. Suffolk Law School
...purpose of reviewing its action in taking jurisdiction of the proceeding. See Elder v. Dwight Mfg. Co. 4 Gray, 201, 204, 205; Santom v. Ballard, 133 Mass. 464; Case, 228 Mass. 213, 117 N.E. 200. The decision of the board of tax appeals is reversed and the appeal of the taxpayer to the board......
-
Donnelly v. Montague
... ... dismissing the appeal. Decrees have been so affirmed ... Custy v. Lowell, 117 Mass. 78 ... Lawless v ... Reagan, 128 Mass. 592. Santom v. Ballard, 133 ... Mass. 464 ... Leyland v. Leyland, 186 Mass. 420 ... Giles v. Kenney, 221 Mass. 262 ... Universal ... Optical Corp. v. Globe ... ...
-
National Fertilizer Co. v. Fall River Five Cents Sav. Bank
... ... raised nor counsel argued it. Baldwin v. Wilbraham, ... 140 Mass. 459, 4 N.E. 829. Santom v. Ballard, 133 ... Mass. 464. When, therefore, the attention of the court was ... directed in Friedenwald Co. v. Warren to the plaintiff's ... ...
-
Donnelly v. Montague
...instead of dismissing the appeal. Decrees have been so affirmed. Custy v. Lowell, 117 Mass. 78;Lawless v. Reagan, 128 Mass. 592;Santom v. Ballard, 133 Mass. 464;Leyland v. Leyland, 186 Mass. 420, 71 N.e. 794;Giles v. Kenney, 221 Mass. 262, 108 N.E. 940;Universal Optical Corp. v. Globe Optic......