Case Name: Josiah Bemis versus James Faxon
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1806-09
Citations: 1 Tyng 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: Josiah Bemis versus James Faxon.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Josiah Bemis versus James Faxon.
An appeal lies to this Court from the Court of Common Pleas, although they arrest judgment after verdict.
This was an action of assumpsit. In the Court of Common Pleas, on the general issue pleaded, there was a verdict for the plaintiff, and, on motion of the defendant, judgment was arrested. Upon this the plaintiff appealed; and now T. B. Adams, for the defendant, moves the Court to dismiss the appeal. And he argued that an appeal lies to this Court only where a party is aggrieved at a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. Vide “ An Act establishing Courts of Common Pleas,” passed July 3, 1782. Here being no judgment rendered, there was nothing from which to [ * 142 ] appeal. In the act constituting the Courts * of Probate, an appeal is provided in cases of denial of justice, but there is no such provision respecting the Common Pleas. The plaintiff’s proper remedy is by writ of error. We apprehend the Court cannot sustain this appeal.
T. Williams, on the other side, was stopped by the Court.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The statute gives an appeal from every judgment of the Common Pleas to this Court. But it is contended that in this case there was no judgment, and so nothing to found an appeal upon. But if the court below did not see fit to render judgment according to the verdict, they ought to have entered another judgment, viz., That the plaintiff take nothing by his writ. We have, however, no doubt that the arresting of the judgment in this case, although a regular judgment was not entered, is such an act of the court, from which an appeal lies. If it were otherwise, the Court of Common Pleas would possess a power to oust this Court of its appellate jurisdiction at their pleasure. The appeal is sustained, and the action will stand for trial in course.
Tappan vs. Bruen, 5 Mass. Rep. 193. — Wood vs. Ross, 11 Mass. Rep. 271. Lamphear vs. Lamprey, 4 Mass. Rep. 107. —Farnsworth vs. Garrard, 1 Camp. 38. Duncan vs. Blundell, 3 Stark. 6.—Montriou vs. Jeffries, 1 R. & M. 317. — Sinclair vs. Bowles, 9 B. & Cr. 92. — Denew vs. Duverell, 3 Camp. 451