Case Name: Ebenezer Slayton versus The Inhabitants of Chester
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1808-09
Citations: 3 Tyng 478
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Ebenezer Slayton versus The Inhabitants of Chester.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
* Ebenezer Slayton versus The Inhabitants of Chester.
When a writ is returned by an officer as duly served, the defendant is estopped from denying the service. And the Court will, ex officio, take notice of the return.
The writ on which this action was founded, bore date April 6, 1808, and was returnable at the term of the Common Pleas then next, viz., on the third Monday in May.
The return of the officer was as follows: “ Hampshire, ss., April 14, 1808. By virtue of this writ, I summoned the inhabitants of Chester, by reading to them the within in their hearing; and I gave a copy of the within to Sylvester Emmons, Esq., one of the principal inhabitants of Chester, for their appearance as the law directs.
“ Newcomb Cleveland, Dep. Sheriff.”
“ And the said inhabitants come, &c., and pray judgment if they ought to be held to answer to said Slayton’s writ aforesaid, because they say that a copy of the said writ was not left with the clerk of said town of Chester, or with one or more of the principal inhabitants thereof, thirty days before the day of the sitting of the Court, into which the same was returnable ; and this the said inhabitants are ready to verify ; wherefore they pray judgment of the said writ, and that the same may be quashed, and for their costs.”
To this plea in abatement the plaintiff demurred, and assigned the following causes of demurrer: “ 1. Because the said inhabitants, ;n their said plea, do not pray judgment if they shall be held to answer to the said writ of the said Ebenezer. 2. Because the said inhabitants, in their said plea, do not allege that no copy of said writ was left with the clerk of said town of Chester, or with one or more of the principal inhabitants thereof, thirty days before the sitting of the Court, into which the same writ was returnable by the said N. C., who served the same writ, and has made his return thereon. 3. Because it appears by the said writ and the return thereon, that a copy of the same was left with one of the principal inhabitants of Chester thirty days before, &c., and the said inhabitants ought to be estopped from averring that no copy was left with one of the said principal inhabitants. 4. Because the said plea is uncertain and informal.”

Opinion:
*The defendants joined in demurrer. And the opin- [*479 ' ion of the Court was delivered by
Parsons, C. J.
In this action, the defendants pray judgment it they ought to be held to answer the plaintiff's writ, because the? say that a copy of it was not left with the clerk, or with one of the principal inhabitants of the town, wherefore they pray judgment of the writ, that it may be quashed. To this plea in abatement there is a demurrer for cause; and one of the causes is, that it appears from the return endorsed on the writ, that a copy of it was left with one of the principal inhabitants of Chester, and that the defendants are estopped from denying it. And this demurrer has been joined.
Bliss for the plaintiff.
Ashmun for the defendants.
It is very clear that when a writ appears by the return endorsed by the officer to have been legally served, that the defendant cannot plead in abatement of the writ, by alleging matter repugnant to the return: if the return be false, his remedy is by an action for a false return against the officer.
But it is objected that the return is no part of the plaintiff's demurrer, and that the Court cannot, ex officio, take notice of it. Regularly the plaintiff ought to have prayed oyer of the return before he demurred, and then no doubt could have arisen upon the plea, as it would, without question, have been bad. If the estoppel had been by matter of record in another court, or in another cause in this Court, the objection must have prevailed. But as the record relied on as an estoppel is a return on thezsame writ, against which the plea is pleaded, we are satisfied that we can, ex officio, take notice of it, as, in fact, if we read the writ, we cannot avoid noticing the return, unless we wilfully shut our eyes; for it of course is written on the same page which contains the endorsement of the writ by the plaintiff, and which is a part of it. As we notice the return, the plaintiff is estopped from making the allegation of want of service, and the plea must be holden bad, and an interlocutory judgment be entered, that the defendant answer further.
Let the clerk enter the judgment specially after this form: " Whereupon the Court here having inspected the same writ, and the return endorsed thereon by Newcomb Cleveland, a deputy sheriff, to whom the writ is directed; which return is in the [ * 480 ] words following, [here let the return be inserted,] it * appears to the Court that the same plea, and the matters therein contained, are bad, and insufficient in law to abate the said writ; it is therefore considered," &c., [in the usual form of a respondeos ouster.]