« ForrigeFortsett »
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to wit: BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the tenth day of February, in the thirty-third year of the Independence of the United States of America, WILLIAM CHARLES WHITE, of the said District, has deposited in this ffice the Title of a Book, the Right whereof he claims as Author, in the words following, to wit : “ A COMPENDIUM and DIGEST of the LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS. By WILLIAM CHARLES WHITE, Counsellor at Law. Misera servitus est, ubi jus est vagum, aut incog. nitum,' Vol. I, Part I.”
In conformity to the Ad of the Congress of the United States, intitled, “ An Ad for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies during the times therein mentioned ;” and also to an Aa, intitled, “ An Act, supplemeetary to an Act, intitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copics of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies during the times therein mentioned ; and extending the Benefits thereof to the Arts of Designing, Engraving, and Etching Historical, and other Prints,”
WILLIAM S. SHAW,
Clerk of the District
TO THE HONOURABLE
THEOPHILUS PARSONS, (CH. J.)
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
THE FOLLOWING EFFORT
THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE,
WITH RESPECTFUL DIFFIDENCE,
THE quotations from Espinasse are from the Philadelphia edition, 1791 ; and those from Blackstone are from the Portland edition, 1807. The statutes are quoted after the manner adopted in the two first volumes of the Massachusetts Reports ; with this difference however, that the Reports give only the date of the statute, whereas the number of the statute (computed from the first statute of the same date) is also given in this work. This addition of the number of the statute was deemed expedient by reason of the frequent occurrence of many statutes bearing precisely the same date. In future the statutes will be quoted by chapters and not by dates, in compliance with the mode adopted by Mr. Tyng, in the third volume of our Reports.
At the end of each volume a full index of the principal matters will be subjoined ; and with the last volume will be given a supplement, in which the work will receive such additions and corrections as may be deemed necessary to supply its defects, and rectify its errors. In the mean time, the compiler solicits the candour of the profession towards a work, upon which no small degree of diligence has been bestowed ; and which aspires not beyond the humble praise of useful accuracy."
1. MISNOMER OF THE PERSON-page 17.-It is said, misnomer must be pleaded in proper person, and not by attorney ; for, by making an attorney, the writ is acknowledged. F. N. B. 27, a. But, it seems, if there be a special letter of attorney for this purpose, it will be good. See Stor. Plead. 46, in notis, cit. Lut. 11. 1 Com. Dig. F. 18. J. 17.
2. SERVICE OF WRITS-P. 30.-When any suit shall be commenced against any town (or other body corporate) a copy of the writ, or original summons, or such other legal process as may issue against them, shall be left with the clerk of such town, or with one or more of the principal inhab. itants thereof, (or with the clerk, or some principal member of the body corporate) thirty days at least before the day of the sitting of the court, unto which the same shall be returnable.
3. NUDUM PACTUM-p. 170.--Mr. Justice Wilmot, in the case of Pillans & Rose vs. Van Mierop & Hopkins, observes, that “the notion of a nudum pactum was intended as a guard against rash and inconsiderate declarations ; but if an undertaking was entered into upon deliberation and reflection, it had activity ; and such proinises were binding." He further observes, that “ he cannot find that a nudum pacium, evidenced by writing, has been ever holden bad, and that he should think it good ; though where it is merely verbal it is bad, yet he gave no opinion upon its being good always, when in writing.”
3 Burr. 1670. " If, in consideration of a thing already done, without my request, not for my benefit, and where I was under no moral obligation to do it, I promise to pay money, that is nudum pactum, and void. But, if I were under a moral obligation to do a thing, and another person does it without my request, and I afterwards promise to pay, that is good.” Buller's Nësi Prius, p. 147.
But although a moral obligation is a good consideration for an express promise, yet it has never been carried further, so as to raise an implied promise in law. 1 Selw. 51, cit. Atkins v. Bandwell, 2 East. 505.
5. TREATY OF LONDON.-P. 79, in the 2d note.—This treaty was concluded in the year 1794.
0. Costs. For a more full exposition of this subject, as applying to the several titles, the reader is referred more particularly to this article, under the title of ASSUMPSIT.
The statute of Mar. 11, 1808, enlarging the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and taking away costs in certain cases, did not take effect till the first day of June of the same year.
7. WHO ARE ALIENS-p. 75.-See Appendix, No. I. L. U. S. 1802, sect. 4 ; and L. U. S. 1804, sect. 2.
Page 21, 5th paragraph, for alius dictus, read alias dictus.
Page 79, in the 2d note, beginning at the 2d line, and ending at the 4th line, read as follows : " it was agreed, that, &c. who then held lands, &c. and, &c. who then held lands, &c. should continue to hold, &c.”
Page 145, in the 2d and 8th lines of the note, for are read is.
VOL. I. PART I,
NAMES OF THE CASES,
OF VOL. I. PART I.
148 108 109 183 179 175
173 180 194 115
19 178 184
PAGE Abbot v. Smith
23 Cobden v. Kendrick Abbot v. Chapman
187 Cockcroft v. Smith Abernethy v. Landale
164 Coffin v. Coffin, Aldsworth's Case
175 Cogswell v. Dolliver Allen v. Hearn
159 Cole v. Hawkins Allen v. Rescous
171 Collins v. Gibbs Amyon v. Shore
109 Combe v. Pitt Andree v. Fletcher
151 Commonwealth v. Andrews Andrews v. Bosworth
28 Commonwealth v. Macomber Arris v. Stukely
147 Cooke v. Samburne Astley v. Reynolds
147 Cooke v. Munstone Austin v. Gervas
177 Cooke v. Gibbs Avery v. Ray & al.
113, 114 Crane & al. v. Hummerstone Avery v. Inhabitants of Tyringham 175 Crawford v. Satchwell
Crisps v. Baynton Bach v. Owen
176 Cushman v. Loker Barfoot v. Reynolds
111 Cutter v. Powell Barnard v. Harrington
27 Beauchamp v. Neggin
170 Da Costa v. Jones Bemis v. Faxon
Dale v. Sollet Benjamin v. Porteus
Day v. Bisbitch Bennus v. Guyldley
144 Darby v. Bowker Benson v. Swift
108 Darwent v. Walton Bize v. Dickason
146 Dean v. Guyse Blackmore v. Tidderly
112 Dean v. Dean Blaney v. Hendrick
191 Desborough v. Kelby Bloxham v. Pell
169 Dexter & Ux. v. Brown Bonnel v. Fouke
147 Dickinson v. Davis Bourne v. Mason
180 Dixon v. Cooper Bradburne v. Bradburne
Drage v. Netter Brickford v. Page
192 Duberly v. Gunning Brigs' Case
147 Brinley v. Allen
194 Escot v. Milward Brooks v. J. and J. Dorr
165 Eddy v. Knap Broome v. Wooton
112 Edwards v. Crock Brown v. Austin
167 Elliott v. Rogers Brown & al. v. Babcock & al. 184 Elsham v. Fawcet Browning v. Morris
151 Buckley v. Hale
109 - Farmer v. Davis Bull v. Sibbs
155 Faxon v. Mansfield & al. Buller v. Harrison
162 Fetter y. Beale Burrough v. Skinner
156 Fletcher v. Harcot Butcher v. Andrews
153 Floyd v. Day
Flureau v. Thornhill Campion v. Nicholas
163 Fooler v. Cooke Chambers v. Caulfield
67 Ford v. Keith Chandler v. Grieves
165 Forris v. Johnes Clifford v. Cony,
29, 35 Foster v. Hooper