Case Name: Levi Hearsey versus John Bradbury
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1812-05
Citations: 8 Tyng 95
Docket Number: 
Parties: Levi Hearsey versus John Bradbury.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
Levi Hearsey versus John Bradbury.
Where an original writ was served by a constable, although not directed to him, but the ad damnum was under 70 dollars, the plaintiff had leave to amend his writ, by inserting a direction to the constable.
The original writ in this case, which was a personal action, was directed to the sheriff or his deputy. The ad damnum being under 70 dollars, the writ was served and returned by a constable, although not directed to him. At the return term in the court below, Howard, for the defendant, moved the court to abate the writ, ex officio, for want of legal service.
Whitman,
for the plaintiff, moved for and obtained leave to amend the writ, by inserting a direction to the constable.
Upon the appeal, Howard renewed his motion here.

Opinion:
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.
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 particular 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.]