Case ID: mass_105/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Morton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen Leonard vs. Margaret Hannon.
    Hie superior court has no jurisdiction of an action of replevin, the parties to which have indorsed upon the writ, on the day after it was sued out, an agreement that the value of the property replevied is less than twenty dollars.
    Replevin of household furniture. At the term of the superior court at which the action was entered, the defendant moved to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction; and Dewey, J., by consent of the parties, reported the question, before verdict, for the determination of this court, on facts which are stated in the opinion.
    
      M. P. Knowlton, ( Gr. M. Stearns with him,) for the plaintiff, cited Pomeroy v. Trimper, 8 Allen, 398.
    
      Gr. D. Robinson, for the defendant.
   Morton, J.

The jurisdiction of the superior court, in an action of replevin for goods, depends upon the value of the goods replevied at the time of suing out the writ. If this value does not exceed twenty dollars, the court has no jurisdiction. Gen. Sts. c. 143, §§ 10,11. Davenport v. Burke, 9 Allen, 116. And whenever it appears, either upon a plea in abatement, or at the trial, or otherwise, that in fact the value does not exceed twenty dollars, it is the duty of the court to dismiss the action as not being within its jurisdiction. Davenport v. Burke, ubi supra. King v. Dewey, 11 Cush. 218. Sackett v. Kellogg, 2 Cush. 88.

In the case at bar, there is no allegation in the writ of the value of the goods replevied. On the day after the writ was sued out both parties signed a written agreement, indorsed upon the writ, as follows : “ We hereby agree, as to the value of the within property, that it be taken to be nineteen dollars.” The plaintiff now contends that this agreement fixes the value of the property only for the purpose of determining the amount of the bond. But the agreement itself contains no such restriction. It is absolute in its form, and we think fixes the value of the property for all the purposés of the case.

It being thus made to appear that in fact the value of the property does not exceed twenty dollars, it follows that the superior court has no jurisdiction and that the action must be

Dismissed.