Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1812

Hearsey v. Bradbury

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided May 15, 1812 · Parker, Sewall, Thatcher

9 Mass. 95

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Hall (Me. 1885)
Merchants Credit Service, Inc. v. Chouteau County Bank (Mont. 1941)
Kent v. Roberts (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine 1843)
Whitaker v. First Nat. Bank of Basin (Wyo. 1925)
Neszery v. Beard (Mass. 1917)
McArthur v. Boynton (Colo. App. 1903)
McArthur v. Boynton (Colo. App. 1903)
Aldrich v. E. W. Blatchford & Co. (Mass. 1900)
Upper Mississippi Transportation Co. v. Whittaker (Wis. 1862)
Brown v. Dudley (N.H. 1856)
Morrell v. Cook (Me. 1852)
Morrell v. Cook (Me. 1850)
Rollins v. Rich (Me. 1847)
Miller v. Miller (Me. 1845)
Blanchard v. Waters (Mass. 1845)
Aldrich v. Aldrich (Mass. 1844)
City Bank of New Orleans v. McIntyre (La. 1844)
Wiggin v. Fitch (Me. 1839)
Converse v. Damariscotta Bank (Me. 1839)
Tilton v. Parker (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1827)
Wood v. Ross (Mass. 1814)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Sewall, J., and Parker, J.

The constable had authority by law to serve the writ. The defendant appeared. * It was but matter of form, and the court below were justified in granting the amendment, by which the defect is cured.

Thatcher, J.

The writ not being directed to the constable, he had no authority to serve it. The appearance of the defendant was only to take advantage of the defect, and ought not to prejudice him. (a)

Motion overruled.

[In Campbell vs. Styles, (post.217,) (Wood vs. Ross, 11 Mass. Rep.276,) the Court seemed to consider the direction to the officer as essential to his authority, to serve a process, and Parker, C. J., said, “It may be considered as necessary that there should be a particular direction to the officer, even in cases where his authority to serve is recognized by statute.” And in Brier vs Woodbury, (1 Pick. 366,) the same judge, giving the opinion of the Court, said, “ The first question, in that case, was whether a constable might by law serve a precept in a civil action, which was not directed to such-an officer; ’’ and he adds, “ We think this point well settled in the case of Hearsey vs. Bradbury, and recognized as law in Wood vs. Ross.” “ It ought to appear on the precept itself, that authority was intendea *o be given to the constable on that *92particular process.” The question then occurs, if the service was a nullity, and void for want of authority in the officer, could an amendment, ex post facto, give it an validity? — Ed.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.