TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robinson v. Mead

Josiah Robinson versus Stephen Mead

Robinson v. Mead, 7 Mass. 353 (1811)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1811
Citations
7 Mass. 353
Headnotes
The action of replevin is local in its nature, and must be brought in the county where the goods and chattels are taken or attached.
Summary
The plaintiff, naming himself of Boston, sued this writ of replevin of a chaise attached by the defendant, a deputy sheriff, of the county of Middlesex, at Cambridge, in said county. The defendant pleaded property in a stranger, and, after a verdict, finding the chaise to be the property of the plaintiff, moved in arrest of judgment for the following cause: — “ Because the said Robinson, by his own showing in his writ aforesaid, hath alleged that the goods and chattels therein mentioned were taken and attached by said Mead in Cambridge, in the county of Middlesex, and not in the county of Suffolk, in which last county the said writ was sued out and made returnable; whereas, by the law of the land, the said Robinson ought to have sued out his writ of replevin for the said goods and chattels, if any just cause he had, in the Court of Common Pleas, established and holding pleas in the said county of Middlesex, and not in the said county of Suffolk” The cause was argued at the last March term in this [ * 354 ] * county, by Davis, solicitor-general, and Munroe, for the plaintiff, and Fuller for the defendant.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

At this term the Court decided that the action was local in its nature, and the judgment was arrested.

Costs for the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1850–1851: 11856–1857: 11858–1859: 11870–1871: 11874–1875: 11884–1885: 11906–1907: 11914–1915: 11956–1957: 118502026peak 1850 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. Webber60 Mass. 560 (1850)
  2. State v. Shappy65 A. 78 (Vt. 1906)
  3. Kirk v. Matlock7 P. 322 (Or. 1885)
  4. Webb v. Goddard46 Me. 505 (1859)
  5. Central Maine Power Co. v. Maine Central Railroad93 A. 41 (Me. 1915)
  6. Young v. Lego38 Wis. 206 (1875)

Most recent

  1. Kay & Company v. LANARK CORPORATION301 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. App. 1957)
  2. Central Maine Power Co. v. Maine Central Railroad93 A. 41 (Me. 1915)
  3. State v. Shappy65 A. 78 (Vt. 1906)
  4. Kirk v. Matlock7 P. 322 (Or. 1885)
  5. Young v. Lego38 Wis. 206 (1875)
  6. Haskell v. Inhabitants of Woolwich58 Me. 535 (1870)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list