Case ID: mass_9/html/0289-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Taunton and South Boston Turnpike Corporation versus William P. Whiting.
    A turnpike corporation is not within the purview of the statute of 1784, c. 28, § 13.
    Assumpsit for the amount of sundry assessments made on the shares of the said turnpike, for which the defendant subscribed.
    The defendant, at the return term of the writ in the court below, filed the following plea, viz.: And now comes the said W.P. W., in his own proper person, and defends, &c., when and where, &c., and prays judgment of the plaintiffs’ writ; because he says that, the said action is a personal and transitory action; and at the time of the purchase and service of said writ, or at any time before, the defendant did not live in said county of Bristol ;■ and the said plaintiffs, at the time of the purchase and service of said writ, and long before, were a corporation in- fact and in name within this commonwealth, but had no domicile in said county of Bristol; and that he, the said W. P. W., at the time of the purchase and service of said writ, and long before, lived, and still lives, in Boston, within the county of Suffolk, in said commonwealth ; wherefore the plaintiffs, if they had any good cause of personal or transitory action against him, the said W. P. W., ought to have brought the same to the Court of Common Pleas within.and for said county of Suffolk, and not to the Court of Common Pleas within and for said county of Bristol; and this the said W. P. W. is ready to verify; wherefore, & c.
    * To this plea the plaintiffs demurred, and assigned for causes of demurrer, 1. That the defendant hath made full, instead of half defence, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. That A, B, C, and others, are members of said corporation, and live within the county of Bristol. The defendant joined the demurrer.
    At the last term, Tillinghast, for the plaintiffs, insisted that the case at bar was not within the provision of the statute of 1784, c. 28, § 13, on which the defendant’s plea was predicated. But, if it was, the corporation was established within this county, and most of the corporators were inhabitants thereof. The action was well brought, therefore, in this county.
    ' The defendant,
    
    a counsellor of this Court, cited the cases of Day & Al. vs. Jackson Sf Al., 
       and The Inhabitants of Lincoln vs. Prince. 
      
    
    The cause stood continued to this term for advisement; and now,
    
      
       5 Mass. Rep. 237
    
    
      
       2 Mass. Rep. 544.
    
   The Court

observed that, upon consideration, they were satisfied that the plaintiffs, having no commorancy, are not within the purview of the statute relied on by the defendant. The plea in abatement was therefore overruled, and a

Respondeos ouster awarded.