Wright v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 15 January 1881
• Citation: 130 Mass. 149
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: James Wright v. Oren Andrews & another

130 Mass. 149

James Wright v. Oren Andrews & another

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 15, 1881

Argued November 3, 1880

Essex. Contract upon a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the defendants in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., without a jury, the plaintiff put in evidence a duly certified copy of the judgment declared on, by which it appeared that no personal service was made on the defendants, who were citizens of this Commonwealth, but that an attachment of their property was made, and an order of notice to them duly published; that thereupon the defendants appeared by attorney and answered to the action; and that judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendants.

The defendants, to prove that the court in Maine never obtained jurisdiction over the defendant Oren Andrews, offered evidence tending to show that, at the time the action was brought, and long previous thereto, he resided in Lawrence in this Commonwealth; that he had considerable real estate in Maine attached in that action; and that, after the attachment, he went to Maine and employed counsel to defend the action, for the sole purpose of protecting his property from the effects of the attachment, and not for the purpose of defending the action independently of his property; that he should not have gone except to defend his property from a suit which he deemed had no legal merits.

To show that the court in Maine never obtained jurisdiction over Sumner Andrews, the other defendant, evidence was offered tending to show that he was not a resident of Maine at the time the action was brought, nor for a long time previous thereto; that he had property attached in that action of the value of about ten dollars; that the amount of his liability in case judgment should be rendered against his property would be so small, that he refused to go to Maine to defend the action; that he never employed counsel, or authorized any one to employ counsel for him; that he went to Maine and testified as a witness in the case, but not as a party.

The defendants asked the judge to rule that, upon this evidence the plaintiff could not recover; but the judge declined so to rule; ruled that the facts offered in proof were not competent and sufficient to show that the court of Maine had not jurisdiction of the defendants; and held, upon the whole evidence, that that court had jurisdiction of the defendants, and that this action could be maintained. The defendants alleged exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

J. C. Sanborn, for the defendants.

J. Wright, pro se.

Gray, C. J. Ames & Endicott, J.J., absent.

OPINION

Gray, C. J.

The...