Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 227, § 1 (2026)

Actions in personam

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 1. A personal action shall not be maintained against a person not an inhabitant of the commonwealth unless he or his agent appointed under section five or five A has been served with process in the commonwealth, or unless service has been made upon him outside the commonwealth, as authorized by chapter two hundred and twenty-three A, or unless an effectual attachment of his property within the commonwealth has been made upon a writ of attachment, and in case of such attachment without such service, the judgment shall be valid only to secure the application of the property so attached to the satisfaction of the judgment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1923–2019 · leading case: Roch v. Mollica, 113 N.E.3d 820 (Mass. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roch v. Mollica, 113 N.E.3d 820 (Mass. 2019). “223, § 2 (district courts "shall have jurisdiction of a transitory action against a defendant who is not an inhabitant of the commonwealth, if personal service or an effectual attachment of property is made within the commonwealth; and such action may be brought in any of said…”

Farley v. Sprague, 372 N.E.2d 1298 (Mass. 1978). “It is the contention of the defendant that the judgment against him is void because the court never obtained jurisdiction over him as prescribed under G. L. c. 227, § 1, and c. 223, §§29 and 31, in effect prior to St.”

Wood v. Wood, 342 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1976). “We agree with the defendant that G. L. c. 223, § 115, does not apply to Probate Courts, but G.”

Cressey v. Erie R.R., 180 N.E. 160 (Mass. 1932). “The conclusion urged is that the action is an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, that the statute allowing the attachment of property in this Commonwealth is void so far as applicable to this case, and that therefore the court is without jurisdiction.”

Farley v. Sprague, 360 N.E.2d 1073 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). “828 (1974), to vacate a default judgment entered against him in the Superior Court on October 3, 1975; the only substantial basis for the motion was that the defendant was a resident of Florida (see G. L. c. 227, § 1, as in effect prior to St.”

Boston Sheridan Co. v. Sheridan Motor Car Co., 138 N.E. 806 (Mass. 1923). “G. L. c. 227, § 1. The case against it, therefore, was dismissed properly for want of jurisdiction.”

Nowell v. Nowell, 296 F. Supp. 640 (D. Mass. 1968). “Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 227, § 1, authorizes a personal action against a non-resident when an attachment is made of his property.”

McIsaac v. Peck, 281 N.E.2d 610 (Mass. 1972). “714 ; G. L. c. 227, § 1; G. L. c. 246, § 1. The action of the judge taken on the special appearance of the respondent contesting the jurisdiction of the court was correct.”

Ouimet v. Compco Corp., 22 Mass. App. Dec. 74 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1961). “…Nat. Bank v. Jaynes, 224 Mass. 14 it is said “Construing R. L. c. 170, §1 and §§6 and 9 of the same Chapter (now G. L. c. 227 §§1, 7 and 10) the meaning is that, where an effectual attachment of property of a non-resident defendant has been made, the best kind! of notice…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.