Slike strani

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 HITE, 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 En. couragement 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 A&, intitled, An Ad for the Encouragement of Learning, by securin, the Copies 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, { of Massachusetts.

Sclerk of the District

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]


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 ihere be a special letter of attorney for this purpose, it will be good. See Stor. Plead. 46, in notis, cii 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 inhabitants 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 pactum, 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 Eust. 505.

5. TREATY OF LONDON.- p. 79, in' the 2d note. This treaty was concluded in the year 1794.

6. 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 32, 3d paragraph, for indorsee read indorser.

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.

[blocks in formation]





148 108 109 183 179 175 29

43 46, 102

173 180 194 115

19 178 184 166


PAGE Abbot v. Smith

23 Abbot v. Chapman Abernethy v. Landale

164 Aldsworth's Case

175 Allen v. Hearn

159 Allen v. Rescous

171 Amyon v. Shore

109 Andree v. Fletcher

151 Andrews v. Bosworth

28 Arris v. Stukely

147 Astley v. Reynolds

147 Austin v. Gervas

177 Avery v. Ray & al.

113, 114 Avery v. Inhabitants of Tyringham 175

B Bach v. Owen

176 Barfoot v. Reynolds

111 Barnard v. Harrington

27 Beauchamp v. Neggin

170 Bemis v. Faxon

82 Benjamin v. Porteus

184 Bennus v. Guyldley

144 Benson v. Swift

108 Bize v. Dickason

146 Blackmore v. Tidderly

112 Blaney v. Hendrick

191 Bloxham v. Pell

169 Bonnel v. Fouke

147 Bourne v. Mason

180 Bradburne v. Bradburne

181 Brickford v. Page

192 Brigs' Case

147 Brinley v. Allen

194 Brooks v. J. and J. Dorr 164, 165 Broome v. Wooton

112 Brown v. Austin

167 Brown & al. v. Babcock & al. 184 Browning v. Morris

151 Buckley v. Hale

109 Bull v. Sibbs

155 Buller v. Harrison

162 Burrough v. Skinner

156 Butcher y. Andrews


C Campion v. Nicholas

163 Chambers v. Caulfield

67 Chandler v. Grieves

165 Clifford v. Cony

29, 35

Cobden v. Kendrick
Cockcroft v. Smith
Coffin v.

Cogswell v. Dolliver
Cole v. Hawkins
Collins v, Gibbs
Combe v. Pitt
Commonwealth v. Andrews
Commonwealth v. Macomber
Cooke v. Samburne
Cooke v. Munstone
Cooke v. Gibbs
Crane & al. v. Hummerstone
Crawford v. Satchwell
Crisps v. Baynton
Cushman v. Loker
Cutter v. Powell

Da Costa v. Jones
Dale v. Sollet
Day v. Bisbitch
Darby v. Bowker
Darwent v. Walton
Dean v. Guyse
Dean v. Dean
Desborough v. Kelby
Dexter & Ux. v. Browsi
Dickinson v. Davis
Dixon v. Cooper
Drage v. Netter
Duberly v. Gunning

Escot v. Milward
Eddy v. Knap
Edwards v. Crock
Elliott v. Rogers
Elsham v. Fawcet

Farmer v. Davis
Faxon v. Mansfield & al.
Fetter v. Beale
Fletcher v. Harcot
Floyd v. Day
Flureau v. Thornhill
Fooler v. Cooke
Ford v. Keith
Forris v. Johnes
Foster v. Hooper

159 190 195 188 23 22 85 179

87 114 184 190


160 89 68 155 69

163 174 112 172 147 156 22 151 173 169

« PrejšnjaNaprej »