Case Name: Central Turnpike Corporation, Petitioners for Certiorari
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1827-10
Citations: 7 Pick. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: Central Turnpike Corporation, Petitioners for Certiorari.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 14–15

Head Matter:
Central Turnpike Corporation, Petitioners for Certiorari.
Oct. term, 1827.
Upon an application for a jury to assess the damages sustained by the location of s road, notice should be given to persons interested, to show cause why a warrant for summoning a jury ought not to be issued.
At the Court of Sessions held at Worcester in September, 1826, J. Hall and P. Putnam represented that they had been damaged by the location of a road over their land, by the Central Turnpike Corporation, and by the doings of the committee in estimating the damages ; and they prayed that an order of the court might he made for summoning and empannelling a jury to assess their damages. The petition was granted at the same term, and a warrant was issued to the sheriff, or his deputy, commanding him to summon and empannel a jury ; and at March term, 1827, of the same court, a deputy sheriff returned the warrant, with his doings thereon, together with the verdict of a jury, which verdict was accepted and recorded. At the April term, 1827, of this Court the corporation prayed that a writ of certiorari might issue to the Court of Sessions, assigning among other reasons, that the corporation were not notified of the pendency of Hall and Putnam’s petition, nor were notified to show cause why a jury should not be empannelled, before the warrant was issued.
New ton, for the corporation,
cited St. 1786, c. 67 ; St 1804, c. 125, § 2 ; St. 1802, c. 135, § 2 ; Commonwealth v Coombs, 2 Mass. R. 489; Commonwealth v. Cambridge, 4 Mass. R. 627 ; Same v. Same, 7 Mass. R. 158.
J. Davis'and Sibley, for the respondents.

Opinion:
At April term 1828, a writ of certiorari was accordingly granted for the reason above stated.
See Hinkley et al., Petitioners, 15 Pick. 448.