Skip to main content

Full text of "The law of contracts"

See other formats

i^nxmW Slam ^rljool Hibtary 

Cornell University 

The original of tliis book is in 
tlie Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 





Any of the following Books will be sent by mail (except to the Territories), free of 
postage, on receipt of the publication price. 

D^" We invite the attention of the Profession to our extensive and continually increasing 
stock of Law Books, both Foreign and Domestic, embracing every branch and depart- 
ment of Jurisprudence. Catalogues will be sent on application. 

A BBOT (E. H.), SMITH (Jeremiah), and STEVENS (B. F.).— 
The Law of Life, Accident, and Guarantee Insurance. (In preparation.) 

A BBOTT (Charles, Lord Tenterden). — A Treatise of the La^ relative 
to Merchant Ships and Seamen. The eighth English edition, by William Shee. 
Eighth American edition. With the Notes of Mr. Justice Story, and additional 
Annotations by Hon. J. C. Perkins. Royal 8vo. (In preparation.) 

\ BBOTT BROTHERS. — Reports of Cases in Admiralty, Argued 
■"^ and Determined in the District Court of the United States for the Southern 
District of New York. 8yo. $6.00. 

A LLEN (Charles). — Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the 
"^ Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. 8 vols. Svo. Per vol. §5.50. 

A MERICAN RAILWAY CASES, a complete coUection, with Notes 
■^^ and References to American Railway, Canal, and Turnpike Cases. By 
Chauncey Smith, and Samuel W. Bates. 2 vols. Svo. §10.00. 

A NDREWS (C. C.).— A Practical Treatise on the Revenue Laws 
-^ of the United States. 8yo. $3.50. 

A NGELL (Joseph K.). — A Treatise on the Law concerning the 

-^ Liabilities and Rights of Common Carriers. Third edition. Svo. §6.50. 

A NGELL (Joseph K.). — A Treatise on the Limitations of Actions at 
Law and Suits in Equity and Admiralty, with an Appendix containing the 
American and English Stotutes of Limitations, and embracing the latest Acts on 
the subject. Eourth edition, revised and greatly enlarged, by John Wilder May. 
Svo. $6.50. 



A NGELL (Joseph K.). — A Treatise on the Eight of Property in Tide 
■^ Waters, and a Treatise on the Common Law in Relation to Watercourses. 
New edition. {In press.) 

A NGELL (Joseph K.). — A Treatise on the Law of Life and Fire 
-'^ Insurance, with an Appendix containing Forms, Tables, &c. Second edition. 
8vo. §6.50. 

A NGELL (Joseph K.) and AMES (Samuel). — A Treatise on the 
-^ Law of Private Corporations Aggregate. Eighth edition, revised and cor- 
rected, by John Lathrop. 8vo. $7.50. 

NGELL (Joseph K.) and DURFEE (Thomas).— A Treatise on the 
Law of Highways. Second edition. {Ii press.) 

AVERY (Edward) and HOBBS (George M.). — The Bankrupt Act 
of 1867 : compared with the Act of 1841, the English Bankrupt Law, and the 
Insolvent Law of Massachusetts, with a Digest of the Decisions of the Courts of 
the United States, the several States, and of England, with forms of Proceeding. {In 


ISHOP (Joel P.). — Commentaries on the Criminal Law. Third 
edition, enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo. §15.00. 

BISHOP (Joel P.). — Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and 
Divorce, and Evidence in Matrimonial Suits. Fourth edition, enlarged. 
2 vols. 8vo. $15.00. 

BISHOP (Joel P.). — Commentaries on Criminal Procedure, or the 
Law of Pleading, Evidence, and Practice in Criminal Cases. 2 vols. 8vo. 

"DLACKWELL (R. S.). — A Practical Treatise on the power to sell 
-^ Land for the non-payment of Taxes assessed thereon. Second edition, 
enlarged. 8vo. $6.50. 

TDLAKE (C. F.). — A Treatise on the Law of Corporations; presenting 
-^ the Modern Law of Corporations as now held in the English and American 


Courts, with an Historical Sketch of the Origin and Development of its Doctrine. 
{In press.) 

"DOUTWELL (Hon. G. S.). — Manual of the Direct and Excise Tax 
~^ System of the United States, with Tables of Taxation, Exemption, &c., and a 
complete Alphabetical Index. 8vo. Cloth, $1.00 ; paper, $0.50. 

"DROWNE (Causten). — A Treatise on the Construction of the 
-*-^ Statute of Frauds, as in Force in England and the United States ; with an 
Appendix containing the existing EngUsh and American Statutes. Second edition, 
enlarged. 8vo. $6.50. 

r^HITTY (Edward).— p:quity Digest: An Index to all the Reported 
^^ Cases decided in the several Courts of Equity in England and Ireland, the 
Privy Council, and the House of Lords ; and to the Statutes on or relating to 
the Principle, Pleading, and Practice of Equity and Bankruptcy, from the Earliest 
Period. New revised edition, brought down to the present time, i vols. 8vo. 


pIRCUIT COURT REPORTS. — First Circuit. 18 vols. 8vo. 
^^ $99.00. Comprising: — GaUison's Reports, 2 vols. 8vo., |11.00; Mason's Re- 
ports, 5 vols. 8vo, $27.60 ; Sumner's Reports, 3 vols. 8vo, |16.50 ; Story's Reports, 
3 vols. Svo, $16.50 ; Woodbury and Minot's Reports, 3 vols. 8vo, $16.50 ; Curtis's 
Reports, 2 vols. Svo, $11.00. 

/^OLLYER (John). — A Practical Treatise on the Lavir of Partnership ; 

with an Appendix of Forms. Sixth American, from the second English edition, 

with large Additions to the Text and Notes, by Hon. J. C. Perkins. {In preparation.) 

/BRANCH (William). — Reports of Cases in the United States Circuit 
^ Coitrt of the District of Columbia, from 1801 to 1841. 6 vols. 8vo. .$33.00. 

/^URTIS (George T.). — Precedents in Equity. Supplementary to 
^ Story's Equity Pleading. Third edition. 8vo. $6.50. 

/CURTIS (George T.). — Treatise on the Law of Patents for Useful 
Inventions in the United States of America, and Remedies for their Infringe- 
ment. Third edition, with many additions. 8vo. (In press.) 

r^URTIS (Judge B. R.). — United States Circuit Court Reports. First 
^ Circuit, 1851-56. 2 vols. Svo. $11.00. 

^URTIS (Judge B. R.). — United States Supreme Court Decisions, 
comprising the 58 volumes of cases reported by Dallas, Cranch, Wheaton, 
Peters, and Howard. With Notes and a Digest. 22 vols. Svo. $110.00. 

/CURTIS (Judge B. R.). — Digest of the Decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States from the Origin of the Court to the close of the 
December term, 1854. Svo. $6.50. 

/PUSHING (Luther S.). — Reports of Cases Argued and Determined 
^ in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. 12 vols. Svo. -$66.00. 

/PUSHING (Luther S.). — An Introduction to the Study of the Roman 
^ Law. 12mo. Cloth. $1.25. 

/PUSHING (Luther S.). — Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies 
^ in the United States of America. Third edition. Svo. $7.50. 

T^ANIELL (Edmund R.). — Pleading and Practice of the High Court 
-^ of Chancery. Third American edition. To which are added several entirely 
new Chapters, and copious Notes by Hon. J. C. Perkins, adapting the work to 
American Practice in Chancery. 3 vols. Svo. $22.50. 

DAVIS (Daniel). — A Practical Treatise upon the Authority and Duty 
of Justices of the Peace in Criminal Prosecutions. Third edition, revised and 
greatly enlarged. Edited by F. P. Heard. 8vo. $5.50. 

"P|OMAT (Jean). — The Civil Law in its Natural Order, together with 
-'-^ the Public Law. Translated into Enghsh by William Strahan ; with Remarks 
on some Differences between the Civil Law and the Law of England; printed entire 
from the last London edition. Edited by the Hon. Luther S. Cushing. Fourth 
edition. 2 vols. Svo. $12.00. 



RAKE (Charles D.). — Treatise on the Law of Suits by Attachment 
in the United States. Tiiird edition. 8vo. $7.50. 

"PNGLISH REPORTS (DIGEST). — A Digest of the Decisions of 
-*-^ the Courts of England, contained in the English Law and Equity Reports, from 
the first volume to the thirty-first inclusive. By Chauncey Smith, Esq. Second 
edition. 8vo. §5.50. 

judged in the Courts of Law and Equity, from 1835 to 1852. From the 
London edition. Edited by Chauncey Smith and Samuel W. Bates, Esqrs. 6 vols. 
8vo. $30.00. 

Tj^ARRAR (Timothy). — A Manual of the Constitution of the United 
States. [In press.) 

/^ALLISON (John). — Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in 
^-" the Circuit Court of the United States for the First Circuit, from 1812 to 1815. 
Second edition, with additional Notes and References. 2 vols. 8vo. Sll.OO. 

/^RAY (Horace, Jr.). — -Reports of cases Argued and Determined in the 
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. 14 vols. (Vol. XVL in press. 8vo.) 
Per vol. 65.50. 

/?i REENLEAF (Simon). —Treatise on the Law of Evidence. 3 vols. 
^^ 8vo. Twelfth edition. (Vol. 11. and III. in press.) Vol. I. ready. .$7.50. 

i?j.REENLEAF (Simon). — Maine Reports. New edition. "With 
Notes and References to Later Decisions, hy E. H. Bennett. 9 vols, in 8. 
8vo. $40.00. 

TTEMPSTEAD (Samuel H.). — Circuit Court Reports, Ninth District, 
-^-*- Arkansas. 8vo. 65.50. 

TTEYL (Lewis). — A Digest of the Statutes of the United • States, 
prescribing the Rates of Duties on Imports. 8vo. Paper. §0.75. 

TTILLIARD (Francis). — A Treatise on the Law of Mortgages of Real 
and Personal Property ; being a General View of the English and American 
Law upon that subject. Third edition, enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo. §15.00. 

TTILLIARD (Francis). — A Treatise on Torts, being a Comprehensive 
Summary of the Law relating to "Wrongs committed upon Real and 
Personal Property, upon the Person, Character, and all Absolute and Relative 
Rights; including Disseisin of Lands, Trespasses to Real and Personal Estate 
Slander, Mahcious Prosecution, Neghgence, and, in general, all acts and omissions 
which are made the subject of Actions of Tort. Third edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 

TTILLIARD (Francis). — A Treatise on the Law of Remedies for 
-^-^ Torts or Private "Wrongs. 8yo. $7.50. 

TTILLIARD (Francis). — Treatise on the Law of Vendors and 
-^ Purchasers of Real Property. 2 vols in 1. 8vo. $7.50. 


TTOBAET (Sir Henry). — Reports of Cases Temp. Eliz. et Jac. I. 
Reviewed and corrected by Edward Chilton. First American from the Fifth 
English edition. With Notes by Hon. J. M. WiMiams. 8vo. $3.75. 

TTOWARD (Benjamin C). — Eeports of Cases Argued and Adjudged 
in the Supreme Court of the United States. Vols. IV. to XVIII. inclusire. 
8to. Per vol. $5.50. 

T7"ENT (James). — Commentaries on American Law. Eleventh edition 
-*^ edited and revised by Hon. (?■. F. Comstock. 4 vols. 8vo. $20.00. 

"^ Sketch of the British Claim to exercise a Maritime Police over Vessels of all 
Nations in Peace as well as War, &c. 8vo. $1.00. 

IVrASON (WiUiam P.).— U. S. Circuit Court Reports, First Circuit. 
-^'-*- 5 vols. 8vo. $27.50. 

lY]" ASSACHUSETTS REPORTS. — Reports of Cases in the Supreme 
Judicial Court of Massachusetts. 88 vols. 8vo. $450.00. Comprising: — 
Massachusetts Eeports, 17 vols. 8vo, $59.50 ; Pickering's Reports, 24 vols. 8vo, 
$132.00; Metcalf's Eeports, 13 vols. 8vo, $71.50; Cushing's Eeports, 12 vols. 8vo, 
$66.00 ; Gray's Eeports, 14 vols. 8vo, §77.00 ; Allen's Eeports, 8 vols. 8vo, $44.00. 

lyrASSACHUSETTS REPORTS. — Tyhg's Reports of Cases in the 
■'--'- Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, from 1804 to 1822. With Notes by 
Benjamin Rand. Vol. I. by Ephraim Williams. 17 vols. 8vo. $59.50. 

lyr ASSACHUSETTS DIGEST. — Being a Digest of the Decisions 
of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. By E. H. Bennett and 
r. F. Heard. . 2 vols.' Royal 8vo. $15.00. 

"Fl/TAY (John W.) Treatise on the Law of Insurance as applicable to 
Fire, Life, Accident, and other Risks not Maritime. {In press.) 

"jl/TETCALF (Theron). — Eeports of Cases Argued and Determined 
in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. 13 vols. 8vo. $71.50. 

T) ARKER (Joel). — Conflict of Decisions in the Circuit Court of the 
United States for the First Circuit and in the Superior Court of Judicature of 
New Hampshire, under the Bankrupt Act of 1841. {In press.) 

T> ARSONS (Theophilus). — The Law of Contracts. Fifth edition, 
carefully revised and considerably enlarged. 3 vols. 8vo. $22,50. 

T) ARSONS (Theophilus). — Treatise on the Law of Partnership. 8vo. 
-*- $7.50. 

"pARSONS (Theophilus). — The Elements of Mercantile Law. Second 
edition, carefully revised and considerably enlarged. 8vo. $6.50. 

X) ARSONS (Theophilus). — The Laws of Business for Business Men 
-■- in all the States of the Union. 8vo. Cloth, $3.00 ; sheep, $3.50. 


"DAESONS (Theophilus). — A Treatise on Maritime Law, including 
-*- therein the Law of Shipping, the Law of Insurance, and the Law and Practice 
of Admiralty. 2 vols. 8vo. $13.00. 
pERKINS (J. C.). — A Treatise on Arbitrations and Awards. (In 


"piCKERING (Octavius). — Reports of Cases in the Supreme Judicial 
-*- Court of Massachusetts, from 1822 to 1840. -24 vols. 8vo. S132.00. 

Argued and Adjudged in the Superior Court of Judicature, in the Province of 
Massachusetts, from 1761 to 1772. By Josiah Quincy, Jr. Printed from his original 
manuscripts, in the possession of his son, Josiah Quincy, and edited by his great- 
grandson, Samuel M. Quincy, of the Boston Bar. 8vo. $6.00. 

T)AWLE (William Henry). — A Practical Treatise on the Law of 
-'-*' Covenants for Title. Third edition. 8vo. -Se.SO. 

"DAY (Isaac). — The Medical .Jurisprudence of Insanity. Fourth 
edition, much enlarged. 8vo. .$4.50. 

■pEDFIELD (Isaac F.). — A Practical Treatise on the Law of Rail- 

ways, embracing Corporations, Eminent Domain, Contracts, Common Carriers 
of Goods and Passengers, Investments, &c., &c. Third edition, enlarged. 2 vols. 
8vo. $15.00. 

"DEDFIELD ON THE LAW OF WILLS. — Part L New edition. 
Embracing also the Jurisprudence of Insanity, the Effect of Extrinsic Evidence, 
the Creation and Construction of Trusts ; with Eorms and Instructions for preparing 
Wills. 8vo. $7.50. 

Devises, Legacies, Charitable Trusts, and the Duties of Executors, Adminis- 
trators, and Testamentary Trustees. 8vo. $8.00. 

"piIODE ISLAND REPORTS. — Reports of Cases Argued and 
Determined in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. By Hon. Samuel Ames, 
Chief Justice and Eeporter. Vols. I., 11., and III. : being Vols. IV., V., and VI. of 
Rhode Island Reports. 8vo. Per vol. $5.00. 

OMITH (W. L.). — Probate Law and Practice Designed for the use 
^^ of Executors and others having business in the Probate Court. 12mo. Cloth, 

$1.50; sheep, $1.75. 

O PRAGUE (Peleg). — Decisions in Admiralty and Maritime Cases in 
^ the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. 
Vol. II. {In press. ) 

QTORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on the Law of Agency, as a Branch 

of Commercial and Maritime Jurisprudence, with Occasional Illustrations from 

the Civil and Foreign Law. Sixth edition, revised and enlarged by E. H. Bennett. 

8vo. $6.50. 

O TORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on the Law of Bailments, with IIlus- 
'^ trations from the Civil and Foreign Law. Seventh edition, revised and 
enlarged by E. H. Bennett. 8vo. $6.50. 


QTORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on the Law of Bills of Exchange, 
Foreign and Inland, as administered in England and America. Fourth edition, 
revised and enlarged by E. H. Bennett. 8to. $6.50. 

CTOEY (Joseph). — Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, Foreign 
and Domestic, in Regard to Contracts, Eights, and Remedies, and especially in 
regard to Marriages, Divorces, Wills, Successions, and Judgments. Sixth edition, 
revised and enlarged by Hon. I. F. Eedfield. 8vo. $7.50. 

GTORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on the Constitution of the United 
States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies 
and States before the Adoption of the Constitution. Third edition, revised by E. 
H. Bennett. 2 vols. 8vo. $8.00. 

STORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, as admin- 
istered in England and America. Ninth edition, carefully revised, with exten- 
sive additions, by Hon. I. F. Redfield. 2 vols. 8vo. $15.00. 

STORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on Equity Pleadings and the Inci- 
dents thereto, according to the Practice of the Courts of Equity of England 
and America. Seventh edition, revised and enlarged by Hon. I. F. Eedfield. 8vo. 

STORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on the Law of Partnership as a 
Branch of Commercial and Maritime Jurisprudence, with Occasional Blustra- 
tions from the Civil and Foreign Law. Fifth edition, revised and enlarged, by E. H. 
Bennett, Esq. 8vo. |6.50. 

STORY (Joseph). — Commentaries on the Law of Promissory Notes, 
and Guaranties of Notes and Checks on Banks and Bankers, with Occasional 
Illustrations from the Commercial Law of the Nations of Continental Europe. Sixth 
edition. {In press.) 

STORY (William W.). — A Treatise on the Law of Contracts. Fourth 
edition, revised and enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo. §13.00. 
STORY (William W.). — A Treatise on the Law of Sales of Personal 
Property, with Illustrations from the Foreign Law. Third edition, carefully 
revised and corrected by Hon. J. C. Perkins. 8vo. $6.50. 

STORY (William W.). — Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in 
the Circuit Court of the United States for the First Circuit. 3 vols. 8vo. 

SUMNER (Charles). — Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in 
the Circuit Court of the United States for the First Circuit. Second edition. 
3 vols. 8vo. $16.50. 

TAYLOR (John N.). — A Treatise on the American Law of Landlord 
and Tenant, embracing the Statutory JProvisions and Judicial Decisions of the 
several United States in reference thereto, with a selection of Precedents. Fourth 
edition. 8vo. $7.50. 

TRAIN (Charles R.) and HEARD (F. F.).— Precedents of Indict- 
ments, Special Pleas, &c., with Notes containing the Law of Criminal Pleadiog. 
8vo. $5.00. 


TJNITED STATES DIGEST TO 1862. — Digest of the Decisions 
of the Courts of Common Law and Admiralty in the United States. 23 vols. 
Eoyal 8vo. $154.50. 

Comprising the folloiving : — 

Vol. I. By Theron Metcalf, and J. C. Perkins $7.50 

II. By George T. Curtis 7.50 

III. By George T. Curtis 7.50 

IV. Supplement to do. Vol. I. By John Phelps Putnam 7.50 
„ V. Supplement to do. Vol. II. By John Phelps Putnam 7.50 

VI. Table of Cases to the above. By G. P. Sanger . . 6.50 
VII. to XIX. Annual Digest for 1847-1859. 13 vols. By 

J. P. Putnam, and G. S. Hale 84.60 

XX. Annual Digest for 1860. By H. Farnam Smith . 6.50 

XXI. „ „ 1861. „ „ „ . . 6.50 

„ XXII. „ „ 1862. „ „ „ . 6.50 

„ XXIII. „ „ 1863. „ „ „ . • 6.50 

„ XXIV. „ „ 1864. (Inirress.) 


pleting the above). 2 vols. Royal 8vo. §13.00. 


United-States Statutes relating to Eevenue, Commerce, Navigation, and the 
Currency. Embracing all the Statutes now in force, chronologically arranged. 
Prepared under the sanction and auspices of the Treasury Department, by Lewis 
Heyl. [In press.) 

TT!NITED states STATUTES AT LARGE. — Laws of the 
United States of America, from the Organization of the . Government in 1789 
to the present time. Edited by Richard Peters, George Minot, and George P. 
Sanger. Published by direction and under the patronage of Congress. Complete to 
1865, including Synoptical Index. 14 vols. Eoyal 8vo. $03.00. 

T^TALKER (James M.). — The Theory of Common Law. 8vo. 
^^ .$1.25. 

T^ALKER (Timothy). — Introduction to American Law; designed 
as a Pirst Book for Students. Fifth edition. [In preparation.) 

ARE (Ashur). — Reports of Cases in the U. S. District Court of 
Maine. Second edition, revised and corrected by the Author. 8vo. .So. 50. 

Ty'ASHBURN (Emory).— A Treatise on the Law of Real Property. 

Second edition. 2 vols. 8vo. $15.00. 

TT/'ASHBURN (Emory). — A Treatise on the American Law of Ease- 
ments and Servitudes. Second edition. [In press.) 

T17HEAT0N (Henry). — Elements of International Law. Eighth 
edition, revised, annotated, and brought down to the present time, with Notes, 
by R. H. Dana, Jr. .$7.50. 

WOODBURY (C. L.) and MINOT (George). — Reports of Cases 
Argued and Determined in the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
First Circuit. 3 vols. 8vo. $16.50. 











18 66. 


n '-^ ^ . r^ 

i 1 Q^' fc 

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by 


»u the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetta. 

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by 


In the Clerlt's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by 


In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts, 

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year iSriO, by 


In the Clerk's Office of the Disf let Court of the District of Massachusetts. 

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by 


in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetta 


wiNTiTKOP press: cambridgh. 





1 MIGHT, perhaps, find some excuse for dedicating this work 
to you, in the natural desire of connecting my own labors with 
those which have won for you and for our country so much 
renown. And even more in the friendship, which began so 
long ago we cannot remember its beginning ; and in the long 
years, that through chUdhood, youth, and manhood, have 
brought us upon the confines of age, if not beyond them, has 
never for a moment been broken. 

But neither of these is my principal motive. That, I must 
confess to be, a strong and irrepressible desire to speak of your 
father ; to express, however imperfectly, my gratitude to him ; 
and to execute, even in this slight degree, the purpose I have 
long had, of putting on record my testimony to the excellence 
of one who stood for many years at the head of his profession, 
who was my master during my apprenticeship to the law, and 
ever after my revered instructor and invaluable friend. 

It was in 1815 that I entered his office as a student. I had 
been accustomed aU my life to see him often, and hear him 
often spoken of, for our families were intimate, and he was 
among my father's most valued friends; and I had always 
heard him mentioned with a kind and degree of respect that 



seemed to be paid to him alone. I knew that he had held the 
highest place in his profession for some years ; but the regard 
and reverence generally accorded to him were more than any 
mere professional success could win. When I entered his 
office, he had already given up a large part of his business. 
He did not go often into court; but I heard him in some 
important cases, and was a constant observer of the relations 
between him and his numerous clients. And it was not long 
before I learned the grounds of his high social and professional 

In the first place, let me speak of his judgment and sagacity. 
I cannot conceive of any person possessing, in greater per- 
fection, that admirable thing we call good sense. I doubt 
whether, in his long and active life, he ever made any one mis- 
take of importance. Whoever employed him in any business, 
soon saw that the wisest thing that could be done in his case, 
and at every step of it, was always the very thing that was 
done. Hence a confidence without limit was reposed in his 
opinion ; and his advice was accepted and followed by all who 
received it, as if it made further inquiry or consideration wholly 

The next quality I would mention, was a kindred and 
connected one ; I mean his perfect truthfulness. It seemed 
as if he could not deceive ; and if he had the faculty originally 
he must have lost it by non user. It made no difference on 
which side of a question. the party propounding it to him 
stood ; for his answer was to the question, and not to the man. 
Whether he dealt with a client, an adverse party, a witness, 
the jury, or the court, he dealt with them all honestly. He 
had, what I am sorry to call the rare quality, of loving truth so 
well, that his view of it was not to be distorted or obstructed, 
either by any interest or any feeling of his own or of those 


whom he represented, or by any disturbing influences of cir- 
cumstances or position. 

I speak last of his learning, although this was perhaps more 
frequently remarked upon than his moral qualities, however 
deeply they were felt. He had passed many years in laborious 
and well-directed study; for he was led to this, both by his 
sense of duty to his clients, and by his sagacity, which told him 
that here he must find the means of sound judgment and use- 
fulness and success ; and also by the love of his profession and 
of the law as a science. For many years after he had with- 
drawn from the profession, both as advocate and chamber- 
counsel, he still continued his legal studies ; and often when I 
have called upon him and stated some difficult question which 
had occurred in my practice, he would — not for a fee — but in 
his kindness to me, and his love of the law, enter upon the 
investigation with the zeal of earlier days, and give me the 
whole benefit of his vast knowledge and his unerring sagacity. 

To these qualities I must add that of universal kindness and 
unfailing courtesy. And certainly I have given good reasons 
why he held so long the headship of a profession in which it is 
not easy to climb to the high places, and very difficult to hold 
them ; and also, why, outside of his profession and by society 
at large, he was venerated during his long life as few men 
among us have ever been. Let me add, that while he mani- 
fested, wherever in the conduct of his affairs it was needed, the 
firmness and fearlessness that he inhevited from a father who 
stood like a tower of strengthen command of the American 
forces at Bunker Hill, he was ever, and remarkably, unassum- 
ing, retiring, and modest. It is difficult to believe that he could 
not measure his own success, or that he did not know his high 
position ; but no one ever heard a word or a tone from him 
which indicated such knowledge. 


He was not eloquent, and never, to my knowledge, attempted 
to be ; and yet he was a most successful advocate. It was his 
purpose and endeavor to do for every client, and in every case, 
all that could be done by learning, sense, industry, and honesty; 
this he knew he could do, and did. And more than this he had 
no desire to do. 

Such was William Peescott. When he died in 1844, at 
the age of 82, I had known him intimately for twenty-nine 
years, and had known of him many more. And I never yet 
heard a word spoken, and I never heard of a word spolcen, to 
his disparagement or dispraise, during his long life or since its 
close, by any person whomsoever ; not even have I heard the 
" but " or " if" with which many indulge themselves in qualify- 
ing and clouding the commendation they cannot but render. 
He has left behind him no brilliant speeches to be remembered 
and quoted ; no books in which the fruits of his learning and 
wisdom were gathered and preserved ; and they who knew him 
are passing away, and already his reputation is becoming tra- 
ditional. And very glad shall I be, if, by this slight memorial, 
I may, for a single moment, arrest the waves of time, in their 
advancing flow over the sands in which are written his name, 
and the names of many others of our best and greatest 

Cambridge, October, 1853. 



When preparing for this edition, I stated to my pub- 
lishers that a large addition might be necessary, founded 
upon recent English and American reports, that the 
book might present accurately the law as it stands at 
this time. They suggested to me, that it would be 
better to make a third volume, the two volumes hav- 
ing already become, by gradual increase, in successive 
editions, quite as large as could be conveniently used. 
I have followed tliis suggestion, not merely because it 
permitted me to make the additions and illustrations 
from recent cases more full than I could otherwise 
have done ; but mainly, because it gave me the oppor- 
tunity of enlarging the scope of the work, and em- 
bracing all the objects I had originally intended to 
includ . I have now added new chapters, upon Con- 
tracts of Shipping, Marine Insurance, Fire Insurance 
and Life Insurance, Liens, and the Stamp Acts. I 
have inserted new sections, upon Sales to Arrive, upon 
Bought and Sold Notes, and upon Trust Mortgages ; 
and have greatly enlarged some other sections. The 
book now covers, I believe, all contracts now in com- 



mon use, and the principal remedies for a breach of 

The exceeding kindness of the profession towards 
this book, from its first publication, makes it my duty 
to use my utmost efforts to render it, so far as I can, 
worthy of their reception. And I hope that, by pur- 
suing, in the preparation of the new matter, my orig- 
inal plan of putting in the text all the principles and 
rules of law, and in the notes authority for and illus- 
tration of all that I say in the text, it may be found 
useful to the student, and may enable either him or 
the practitioner to make a thorough investigation of 
any especial question. 

I have hitherto paged the successive editions with 
reference to the paging of the first, by means of stars 
and letters. But , the additions have already been so 
large as to make this paging very cumbersome ; and 
as the new matter is not in a volume by itself, but is 
inserted among the original matter in the places which 
the arrangement of topics required ; and the original 
order is itself somewhat changed ; I am compelled to 
page this edition anew, and to make a similar change 
in the references by which the notes are connected 
with the text. 

I am unwilling to close this preface without again 
acknowledging, sincerely and gratefully, that reception 
by the profession which has exhausted in twelve years 
four large editions. 


Cambridge, 1864. 



In preparing this fourth edition I have earnestly en- 
deavored to make my work more worthy of the singular 
favor which has already exhausted three large editions. 
The third edition contained two new chapters. The 
fourth has two more chapters, and many new sections, 
and new paragraphs in almost every chapter ; and more 
than two thousand new cases are cited. I have profited 
by the friendly criticisms of the press — and have met 
with none which were not friendly — and by whatever 
advice or suggestion could help me. The indexes of 
both volumes have been enlarged, and put together as 
one index at the close of the second volume, in the 
belief that this would facilitate the use of the book. 
For a similar reason, the cases cited in either or both 
volumes have been arranged in one list and prefixed 
to the first volume. The whole work has been, in fact, 
rewritten ; no pains have been spared to insure a full 
and accurate presentment of the law as it is at this 


moment, in all things which relate to the foundation, 

the construction, or the execution of contracts, of every 

kind. I oflfer it to the profession as, substantially, a 

new work; with the most sincere acknowledgment of 

the extreme kindness with which the former editions 

have been received. 

T. p. 

Cambbidgb, May, 1860. 



The title of the thirtieth chapter of the Second Book 
of Blackstone's Commentaries is, " Of title by gift, grant, 
■and contract ; " and in no other chapter does he treat of 
the law of contracts under that name. Since the publi- 
cation of that work, many treatises on this subject have 
been published in England and in this country ; some of 
them are large volumes, and the latest are the largest. 
But I have thought that a work of still wider extent, — 
that is, embracing some topics not usually presented in 
these treatises, and exhibiting the principles of law upon 
many subjects more fully, — would be useful to the stu- 
dent and the practitioner. There is, perhaps, no definite 
standard by which we may determine what, and how 
much, a work on this branch of the law should contain. 
The law of contracts may be said to include, directly or 
indirectly, almost all the law administered in our courts. 
But the line must be drawn somewhere ; and I hope 
it will be found that I have not wandered too far from 
the proper limits of my subject, in my desire to present 
it fully, and to give to all its principles the light they 
reflect upon each other. 



This work is larger than any of its predecessors ; but, 
for finding room in the text for all I wished to say in it, 
I have relied mainly on a peculiarity in its plan, — that 
is, on the rigorous exclusion from the text of all cases. 
I have endeavored to state in the text the principles 
and rules of the law, as accurately, as compactly, and 
as logically as I could; and in the notes, and there 
oi^ly, I have given my authorities. Such was my rule ; 
and the exceptions to it are few ; and my reason for it, 
in addition to the saving' of space, was this: ]f the text 
of any book is composed, in any considerable degree, of 
selected cases, whoever uses the book (whether in learn- 
ing or in practising the law), will naturally suppose that 
these cases contain the prevailing, if not the whole, au- 
thority on that topic, for they are selected and pre- 
sented for that very purpose ; but, if he relies upon 
them, he may be afterwards surprised by the exhibition 
of other cases, equally authoritative, but leading to 
opposite conclusions. These also may have been re- 
ferred to by name in the notes, and even the word 
" contra " affixed to them, but perhaps they are not 
within the reader's reach, or he has not time to ex- 
amine them; and, at all events, nothing which is said 
of them in a foot-note, would place them on an equality 
with their favored opponents. Undoubtedly, a text- writer 
upon any Ijranch of the law has strong inducements to 
make up his book by quotation from authorities. Not 
merely because it fills a page and disposes of a topic 
with little labor, but because, on all obscure and con- 
troverted questions, it is easy, by ample quotation, to 


seem to state the law, and yet avoid both the toil of 
investigation, and the responsibility of the decision. 

I have endeavored to state in the text what I think to 
be the law ; and in the notes I have endeavored to enable 
the reader to judge for himself whether I am right. Cases 
which are only direct authorities for the statements in the 
text are generally referred to only by name and place. 
If they illustrate these statements, still more if they 
modify them, or contradict them, they are given by quo- 
tation, or abstract, at greater or less length, as their 
respective importance seemed to demand. Indeed, I have 
wished to enable the reader to investigate a question as 
he would do it in a complete library, so far as a single 
work of moderate size could accomplish this. The Ee- 
ports are now so numerous that few persons endeavor to 
possess them all; and it was thought that this circum- 
stance would give additional value and utility to a full 
exhibition of authorities. At this School, we have, I be- 
lieve, a more complete collection than exists elsewhere of 
law-books in the English language ; for in England, they 
have not, as far as I know, full collections of American 
law, and nowhere else in this country is it attempted, as 
I suppose, to make the series, both of English and Ameri- 
can text-books and reports, absolutely perfect; this we 
aim at, and, with few exceptions, accomplish. And only 
where I could use such a library should I have endeav- 
ored to give all the parts of so wide a subject as the 
law of Contracts this fulness of annotation. 

Nor would it have been possible for me to have per- 
formed alone aU the labor necessary for this purpose ; 


and in the preparation of these notes I have been very 
greatly indebted to Mr. E. H. Bennett, one of the able 
editors of the very valuable reprint of English Law and 
Equity Eeports, to .Mr. A. W. Machen, formerly, and to 
Mr. C. C. Langdell, now, Librarian of our Law School, and 
to Mr. E. L. Pierce and other gentlemen connected with 
it as students. Few things are more vexatious than to 
search for an authority referred to as pertinent to a ques- 
tion under investigation, and either fail of finding it, or 
discover that it is wholly irrelevant. I believe I may say, 
that all that labor and care could do to prevent this has 
been done. More than six thousand cases are referred to 
in this volume ; but from the beginning to the end of the 
book no case is cited because cited elsewhere, none merely 
on the authority of an index or digest, or of a marginal 
or head note, none without actual investigation of the 
case in its whole extent, and none without a subsequent 
and independent verification of the citation. But no care 
nor labor can wholly avoid mistakes ; and as the plan of 
this work is somewhat novel, and it embraces a great 
variety of topics, and presents questions which it is not 
only difficult, but at present impossible, to settle on 
authority, I dare only to hope that the errors of the work 
will not be found so numerous or so grave as to impair 
materially its utility. And if other editions are called 
for, great care will be taken to profit by all the defects 
discovered, and all the emendations suggested. 



Theee are sundry additions to this volume, two of 
which are of sufficient magnitude to be noticed par- 
ticularly. One of these is a chapter on the Law of 
Bankruptcy and Insolvency. The other is a chapter 
on Eemedy in Equity, or Specific Performance. 

In originally preparing this work, the subject of Insol- 
vency was frequently suggested. In the first volume, 
under the head of Parties, some consideration is given to 
insolvents and bankrupts ; and in other places, in both 
volumes, other references to them occur. But the law 
on this subject was not presented with any fulness, in 
part from the fact that this had not been done in any pre- 
ceding work on the Law of Contracts ; but much more 
from believing that the statutes of insolvency in the 
several States, upon which the law of insolvency in this 
country must depend, were so diverse, that no general 
statement of this law could be made which would be of 
any general utility. But a further examination has con- 
vinced me that it is not altogether so. The diversities 



between our statutes are much more in form than in 
substance. On many points, and those the most material, 
they do, for the most part, harmonize. And in deciding 
the questions which arise under these statutes, all the 
courts make much use of the long series of adjudications 
which in England, and in this country also, although 
here during a shorter period and in a less number, have 
settled the principles applicable to a great variety of 
questions which belong, and always must belong, to 
every rational law of bankruptcy. In the chapter on 
this subject which I have added to this edition, I have 
endeavored to exhibit and to illustrate all these princi- 
ples, without pausing much upon the particular details 
which fall within exact statutory provisions, and may 
be regarded rather as local than general law. 

In regard to the other chapter, that on Remedy in 
Equity, or Specific Performance, I had much more diffi- 
culty. It is an altogether new thing to include a topic 
of this kind among those which belong to the common- 
law jurisdiction. And there are other modes and means 
of equity relief, which might seem to be almost as well 
entitled to a place in a work on the Law of Contracts as 
this. But I was led to the conclusion that such a chapter 
was needed, and almost as much needed as a chapter on 
Damages (which is practically the only remedy for breach 
of contract at common law), by considerations which 
cover almost the whole ground of the relation of Equity 
to Law in this country. 

It is very difficult for a lawyer trained by the study of 


the books, and accustomed to the processes and practice 
now in use, to avoid the conclusion, or at least the ha- 
bitual opinion, that equity jurisprudence and law juris- 
prudence are divided by an actual difference, and by an 
hiatus which cannot be filled. But an examination of 
the history of this difierence on the one hand, and of its 
actual condition on the other, will show us that it is 
wholly artificial, and, if we may ever use the word, acci- 
dental. We derive our system of law from England, 
including therein all our arrangements of courts and all 
their jurisprudence. Practically, this is an excellent 
system, working out as good results, probably, as were 
ever reached in any country in the world. But the 
question still exists, whether the present system has not 
faults which may be corrected, and wants which may be 
supplied ; in other words, whether, good as it certainly 
is, it may not be made better. 

In England there are four quite distinct and almost 
independent jurisdictions. Equity, Law, Admiralty, and 
the Consistory Courts which are governed substantially 
by the canon law. As we have not and never could 
have had Ecclesiastical courts in this country, the business 
transacted in these courts in England is here divided 
among other courts. That part which relates to the 
probate of wills and settlement of estates is given to 
special Courts of Probate, with appeal either to the Su- 
preme Court of Equity or to that of Law ; and so miich 
as relates to marriage and divorce has passed over to the 
courts of equity or law. But the other three remain 

VOL. I. B 


distinct in this country for many purposes, although less 
so than in England. 

There, as is well known, the system of Admiralty was 
curtailed and oppressed until more than half of its proper 
efficiency and utility was lost. Here the difficult question 
arose some years since, whether Admiralty should be held 
to mean in America ^yhat it meant in England when 
most useful, and still means out of England, or only what 
it meant there after other courts had succeeded in sup- 
pressing the larger half of it. Fortunately, the wise 
efforts of a few strong men decided this question aright, 
although against violent and stubborn opposition. And 
we have now an Admiralty which has vindicated its own 
claims to respect and support most successfully. 

The Supreme Equity Court of England stands there 
almost entirely separated from, and, under some aspects, 
antagonistic to the courts of law. In a few of our States, 
equally distinct courts were established, and in some of 
them these courts remain to this day, on almost _the same 
footing as in England. In other States, the legislatures 
have intrusted to the highest common-law courts what- 
ever equity process could, in their judgment, be safely 
and usefully exercised by any courts. 

In many of our States these powers are much circum- 
scribed, and have been given slowly and reluctantly. It 
was supposed that Equity differed from Law in being 
arbitrary, and deciding questions, not literally by "the 
length of the Chancellor's foot," as has been said, but 
by the view which he might take, on the whole, of the 


merits of each case. And when legislators were told 
that equity is not more arbitrary than law, and is admin- 
istered according to certain definite and established rules, 
which it applies with the same caution and accuracy 
with which common-law courts apply their rules, then 
legislators do not comprehend why these rules should 
•be called equitable in distinction from legal. 

And the truth is, there is no reason whatever for ♦t. 
If justice can be done in any case according to law, law 
should do it. If it cannot be done without violation of 
law, it should not be done. It is quite unreasonable to 
maintain in this country, and in this age, a system which 
had no other origin than the necessity that arose from 
the jealousies of independent courts centuries ago, in 
another land and under a different policy. Common law, 
long since, adopted the principal rules of equity in rela- 
tion to mortgages and to bonds. Partially it has adopted 
them as to assignments of choses in action, contribution, 
and a variety of other topics. And there is no reason 
whatever why it may not adopt and exercise fully and 
frankly, all the principles and all the powers of equity. 
The law merchant has been so adopted, and the law of 
negotiable paper is almost as much opposed to the prin- 
ciples of common law, as equity law generally. 

The absence of a jury in equity proceedings causes 
much of the jealoiisy and fear with which they have 
been and still are regarded. This it would be easy to 
remedy. The same objection was felt against the en- 
largement of the Admiralty jurisdiction. And in the 


United States Statute of 1845 (drafted by Judge Story), 
for extending the Admiralty jurisdiction to the great 
lakes and the navigable waters connecting the same, a 
provision was introduced, that any question of fact 
should be determined by a jury whenever either party 
wished it. This Statute has been declared, to some 
extent, unnecessary, by the Supreme Court of the 
liiiited States, on the ground that the Admiralty jurisdic- 
tion, ex vi termini, extended in this country over all our 
navigable waters, whether fresh or salt. But the clause 
respecting a jury remains in force. 

The great change we suggest cannot be made by 
courts alone. They must have statute authority for it. 
But, with the clause above intimated for a jury, we know 
not why every court of common law may not be permit- 
ted to possess, without mischief or inconvenience, all the 
powers possessed now by Courts of Equity, and have and 
use all their useful machinery and all their processes. 

We mean, however, to include only those powers and 
principles which belong properly to Courts of Equity. 
So far as these courts are arbitrary, or neglect or violate 
the rules which rightfully apply to the cases which come 
before them, they justify the unwillingness of many per- 
sons, in and out of the profession, to confer or to enlarge 
equity powers. And in the exposition we offer of one of 
the most important branches of equity jurisprudence, we 
are compelled to refer to instances, in which the cases 
exhibit a fluctuation and uncertainty incompatible with 
any just idea of law of any kind. There are, indeed, 


instances which can hardly fail to suggest to the reader, 
that courts of equity must have sometimes forgotten 
their own maxim, that equity should follow law ; and 
have supposed that it was their function, not to com- 
plete the law and do what it intended but failed to 
accomplish, but the very thing it forbade. 

This is one of the mischiefs which spring from that 
very distinction, or rather division between • law and 
equity, which it tends to perpetuate. The true remedy, 
we think, is to follow out the present tendency to a 
complete union of law and equity. In the great State of 
New York, this experiment is tried on a larger scale, 
and with more completeness than elsewhere. And while 
all acknowledge great benefits resulting from it, we have 
never heard that experience has developed any objec- 
tion, or ill result, sufficient to prevent the hope that this 
new system will be — always with due precaution and 
sufficient delay — and all necessary improvement — 
carried out fully there, and universally adopted else- 







Of the extent and scope of the law of contracts 3 

Definition of contracts 6 

Classification of contracts 7 




(xxiii ) 




Wtether parties are joint or several .... 11 

Of some incidents of joinder .... 21 


Of contribution 31 



Of agency in general .?9 

In what manner authority may be given to an agent 47 

Subsequent confirmation 49 

Signature by an agent H 

Duration and extent of authority . 67 

The right of action under a contract 62 


Liability of an agent 64 


Revocation of authority 69 

How the principal is affected by the misconduct of his agent ... 73 


Of notice to an agent 74 

Of shipmasters 77 


Of an action against an agent to determine the rights of a principal . 79 


The rights and obligations of principal and agent as to each other . 80 


Who is a factor and who a broker .... 91 

Of factors under a commission 91 


Of the duties and the rights of factors and brokers 93 







Origin of trusts H9 


Classification of trusts 120 

Private trustees 121 


Public trustees 123 





Of the kinds of guardians . . 133 

Of tte duty and power of a guardian 134 







Wliat constitutes a partnership 147' 

Of the real estate of a partnership 148 



Of the good-will 153 

Of the delectus personarum . . 154 

How a partnership may be formed 155 

Of the right of action between partners 163 


Of the sharing of losses 166 

Of secret and dormant partners 167 

Of retiring partners 168 

Of nominal partners 171 

When a joint liabiUty is incurred 172 


Of the authority of each partner 174 

Power of a majority 192 

Of dissolution 194 

Of the rights of creditors in respect to partnership funds .... 204 

Limited partnerships 214 






Of assignment of choses in action . . 223 

Of the manner of assignment 228 

Of the equitable defences 229 

Covenants annexed to land 231 



Of gifts inter vivos 234 

Of gifts causa mortis , 236 



Of negotiable bills and notes 238 

Of the essentials of negotiable bills and notes 245 



Of indorsement . . 2.50 

Of indorsement after maturity 254 

Of notes on demand 259 

Of the transfer of bills and notes 261 


Of presentment for acceptance 266 

Of presentment for payment 268 

Of whom, and when, and where, the demand should be made . . 274 

Of notice of non-payment 277 

Of protest 286 


Of damages for non-payment of bills 288 


Bills of lading 289 

Of property passing with possession 290 



Incapacity of infants to contract 29? 


Of the obligations of parents in respect to infant children .... 298 

Voidable contracts for necessaries 312 

Of the torts of an infant 316 

Of the effect of an infant's avoidance of his contract 321 

Of ratification 323 

Who may take advantage of an infant's liability 329 

Of the marriage settlements of an infant 331 

Infant's liability with respect to fixed property acquired by his con- 
tract 332 

Of illegitimate children 336 



Of the general effect of marriage 339 

Of the contracts of a married woman made before marriage . . . 341 

Of the contracts of a married woman made during the marriage . 345 

Of the disability of a wife to act as a single woman 365 


Of the separate estate of a married woman 368 





Non compotes mentis 383 

Spendthrifts 388 

Seamen 389 

Persons under duress 392 





Nature of the relation of master and slave 399 

Action for freedom .... 401 

The capacity of slaves to contract 406 

Liability of the master for the slave 408 


Of contracts between a slave and one nof Ms master 410 

Of gifts to a slave 411 


The peculium 413 

Of the marriage of slaves 414 

Emancipation 415 

Of slaves for a limited time, or statu-liberi 419 







The necessity of a consideration 427 

Kinds of considerations 430 

Adequacy of consideration . 436 


Prevention of litigation 438 

Forbearance 440 

Assignment of debt 445 


Work and service 445 

Trust and confidence 447 

A promise for a promise 448 

Subscription and contribution 452 

Of consideration void in part 455 


Illegality of consideration 456 

Impossible consideration 459 

Failure of consideration 462 

Rights of a stranger to the consideration 466 

The time of the consideration 468 




What the assent must be 475 

VOL. I. c 


Contracts on time 480 









Of the lease 499 

Of the general liabilities of the lessor 500 

Of the general liability and obligation of the tenant 502 

Of surrender of leases by operation of law 509 

Of away-going crops 510 

Of fixtures 511 

Of notice to quit . . 512 

Of apportionment of rent 515 


Of remedy for non-payment of rent 517 



Essentials of a sale 519 

Absolute sale of chattels ■ 621 

Price, and agreement of parties 524 

The effect of a sale . . 525 

Of possession and delivery 529 

Conditional sales 537 


Bought and sold notes 541 

Of sales to arrive 552 

Mortgages of chattels 569 






What the right of stoppage is, aiid who has it 593 


When and how the right may be exercised 601 


Abbey v. Chase i. 54, 68 

V. Dewey ii. 77 1 

Abbot V. Bayley i. 372 

V. Hertnon i. 470 

V. Massie ii. 549 

Abbott V. Broome ii. 392 

0. Burbage iii. 486 

V. Goodwia i. 571 

V. Hendricks i. 256 

w. Hicks iii. 483, 506, 515 

V. Kcitli ii. 711 ; iii. 73 

V. Rogers i. 459 

V. Sebor ii. 390 

u. Sliawmut Ins. Co. ii. 434 

V. Stratten iii. 417 

Abeel v. Radclifif iii. 13, 17 

Abell, cz /(arte i. 211 

V. Warren i. 297 

Aberfoyle, The ii. 334 

Abington v. North Bridgewater ii. 578 

Abitbol V. Bribtow ii. 407 

Abney v. Kingsland i. 530 

Abo, The ii. 398 

Aborn v. Bosworth i. 292 

V. Dubois iii. 288 

Abraham v. Ple.storo iii. 455, 481 

V. Reynolds ii. 43 

Abrahams v. Bunn iii. 116, 125 

Abrams v. Pomeroy ii. 554 

Abrahat v. Brandon ii. 700 

Absolon V. Marks i. 247 

Acebal v. Levy iii. 14, 45, 48 

Acey V. Pernio i. 42, 57 ; ii. 488 

Acherley v. Vernon ii. 528, 529 

Acker v. Ledyard ii. 723 

u. Phoinix i. 492 ; iii. 359 

V. Withrili i. 434 

Ackerman v. Emott i. 123 

Ackermann v. Ehrensperger iii. 103 

Ackland v. Pearce iii. 1 1 7 

Ackley v. Kellogg ii. 141, 213, 216 

V. Hoskins i. 535 

Acome v. The Am. Mineral Co. i. 474 

Acorn, The ii. 317 

A'Court V. Cross 

ii. 65, !0 

Acraman v. Morrice 

ii. 4 19 

Ada, The 

a. 506 

Adair v. Winchester 

i. 224 

Adam, ex parte 
Adams v. Blanhensteiu 

i d. 462 

i. 183 

V. Blodgctt 
</. Claxton 

i i. 448 
iii. 28 1, 465 

V. Frye 
V. Gay 
V. Hackctt 

li. 720 
ii. 753, 764 

iii. 548 

V. JIamcll 

ii. 759 

V. Hardy 

i. 243 

V. H aught 

ii. 298 

«. Hayes 

i. 235 

V. Hill 

ii. 503 

V. Keir 

ii. 589 

V. Johnson 

i. 580 

V. Jones 

ii. 4, 13 

c. Lambert 

i. 493, 540 

D. LindboU 

i. 483, 484 

0. London & Blackwall Rail- 
way Co. iii. .153 
V. Mackay i. 368 
V. Malkin iii. 460 
V. M'ilillan iii. 12, 13, 14 
V. New Orleans Steam-Tow- 
Boat Co. ii. 1 70 
V. Otterbank i. 283, 538 
V. Robinson i. 219 
V. Rockingham Ins. Co. ii. 355, 452 
V. Saundars ii. 416 
V. Shelby ii. 781 
u. Smith i. 258 
1^. Stathara ii. 690 
V. Tlie Sophia ii. 340 
V. Steer ii. 504 
V. Storey iii. 430 
V. Tapling ii. 686 
i;. Torbert i. 277 
V. Townsend iii. 59 
V. Warner ii. 507 
V. Warren Ins. Co. ii. 361, 363 
V. Wheeler i. 530 
( xxxvii ^ 



Adams i: Williiims ii. 53.3 

V. Woods iii. 339 

V. "VToonsocket Co. i. 528 

Expres.s Co. ;;. Egbert iii.. 193 

Adamson v. Jarvis i. 37, 81 ; 785; iii. 192 

Aday v. Ecliols iii. 403 

Adderley v. Dixon iii. 368, 373 

Addingtoa v. Allen ii. 773 

Addis u. Knight iii. 515 

Addison v. Gandassequi i. 95 

u. Gray ii. 690, 698 

«. Kentucky Ins. Co. ii. 433 

Adelle v. Beauregard i. 403 

Adkins v. Baker ii. 271 

V. Watson iii. 16 

Adlard o. Booth i. 463 

Adm'rs of Donnington v. Adm'rs of 

Mitchell i. 373 

Admiral, The ii. 314 

A. D. Patchin, The i. 391 

Adventure, The i. 398 

iEtna Ins. Co. v. Tyler ii. 441, 450, 458, 

461 ; iii. 278 

Aflalo V. Fourdrinier iii. 507 

African Steamship Co. u. Swanzy ii. 334 

Agar V. Biden iii. 410 

V. Macklew ii. 708; iii. 377 

Agawam Bank v. Strever ii. 23 

Agnew V. Bank of Gettysburg i. 282 

u. Ins. Co. ii. 447 

V. McElroy ii. 730, 733 

ii. Piatt iii. 440, 442, 481 

Agricola, The i. 105; ii. 349 

Agricultural Bank v. Bissell iii. 130 

V. Comm. Bank i. 288 

V. The Jane ii. 284 

Aguilar v. Rodgers ii. 357, 359 

Aguire V. Parmelee i. 605 

Ah Thaie v. Quan Wan iii. 165 

Aid, The ii. 320 

Aiken v. Barkley i. 257 

V. Benton iii. 62 

V. Sanford ii. 657 

Ainslie v. Bovnton i. 221, 230 ; ii. 736 

V. Goff ii. 705 

V. Medlycott ii. 785 

Ainsworth v. Partillo iii. 190 

Al<ennan v. Huiaphcry i. 607 ; iii. 487, 488 

Akhurst v. Jackson iii. 473, 479 

Albany Exch.ange Bank v. Johnson iii. 51 7 

Albatross, The v. Wayne ii. 271 

Albert v. Winn i. 370 

Albertson v. Ilalloway i. 465 

Albin V. Presby ii. 154, 155 

Albro V. Aganam Canal Co. ii. 43 

Alchorne v. Gommo i. 507 

Alcock V. Delay iii. 347 

Alcott V. Avery iii. 523 

Alden v. Blague ii. 688 

V. Clark ii. 6 

V. Pearson ii. 294 

Alder v. Keighley iii. 175, 479 

Alder V. Saville ii. 695, 699 

Alderson K. Pope i. 167, 171, 187 

i>. Temple i. 608 

Aldis ji. Chapman i. 352 

Aldrich V. Albee ii. 649, 650, 652 

V. Grimes i. 328 

V. Kinney ii. 609 

V. Reynolds iii. 12U 

V. Simmons ii. .345 

V. Warren i. 242 

Aldridgo V. Johnson i. 527 

V. Turner ii. 6 

Alfred v. Eitzjames ii. 47 

Alewyn ex parte iii. 464 

V. Pryor i. 562, 564 

Alexander v. Alexander i. 81, 83 

V. Burnet iii. 96 

c. Comber iii. 53 

u. Deneale i. 530 

0. Dowie ii. 266 

V. Gardner i. 528, 533, 532 

V. Ghiselin iii. 354, 374, 388 

V. Gibson i. 60 

V. Greene ii. 170 

V. Heriot i. 327 

V. Herr iii. 220, 221 

V. Hutcheson i. 323 

V. Merry iii. 12 

V. Pierce i. 393 

-,. Pratt ii. 407 

r. Springfield Bank i. 259 

The ii. 265, 2.^3 

f. Thomas i. 249 

V. Wellington i. 228 

Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann ii. 689 

Alger B. Scoville iii. 22, 25 

«. Thacker ii. 731 

Alida, The ii. 263 

Aline, The ii. 283 

Alivon 1-. Fin-nival ii. 606; iii. 473 

Alkinson v. Horridge i. 592 

Allaire v. Hartshorne i. 259 

V. Whitney iii. 219 

Works V. Guion iii. 193 

Allan V. Gripper i. 603 

Allegre v. Maryland Ins. Co. ii. 363, 403, 

461, 536, 708 

Alloin V. Sharp i. 417 

Allen, In re iii. 514 

V. Aldrich i. 353, 356 

1-. Allen ii. 599 

V. Anderson i. 593 ; iii. 229 

V. Bennett iii. 4, 9, 17 

V. Blunt iii. 165 

V. Bryan i. 88 

V. Burke iii. 355 

V. Cameron i. 464 

V. Centre Valley Co. i. 213, 214 

V. Chambers iii. 39a 

V. Charlestown Ins. Co. ii. 433, 437 

V. Commercial Ins. Co. ii. 277,384, 

385, 386 



Allen V. Culver 

i. 504 

I'. Davis 

i. 72, 148 

V. Doming 

ii. 759, 764, 765 

V. Dunn 

i. 207 

V. Dykors 

ii. U5, U7 

V. EJgerton 

ii. 680 

]•. Fosgato 

i. U 

V. Hallet 

ii. 339 

V. Hayward 

i. 104, 108 

V. Hoarn 

ii. 756 

u. Hooker 

i. 593 

u. Jarvis 

iii. 209 

V. Kincaid 

ii. 534 

V. King 

i. 270 

V. Mackay 

ii. 309 

V. McKeau 

iii. 531 

V. Merchants Bank ii. 104, 543 

V. Merchants Bank of N. Y. i. 64 

V. Mille iii. 99 

V. Minor i. 295, 313 

V. Mutuallus. Co. ii. 424, 426, 429, 


V. Pink i. 590 

u. Polereczky i. 235 

V. Rescous ii. 746 

V. Riglitmere ii. 29 

V. Sanders ii. 530 

V. Sewell ii. 169, 181, 18:^ 

V. Smith's Adm'r i. 270, 272 

V. Sugruo ii. 386 

V. Suydam i. 86; iii. 192 

0. Thompson ii. 9 ; iii. 25 

V. Watson ii. 710 

V. Wells i. 205, 212 

V. Williams i. 290 ; ii. 291 

Allen's Estate iii. 393 

Alleson c. Marsh ii. 339 

Alley u. Dcschamps iii. 351, 383 

Alliance Ins. Co. v. La. State Ins. 

Co. ii. 421, 443 

Allies V. Probyn ii. 683 

AUin V. Shadburne ii. 715 

Allison V. Haydon ii. 56 

AUmand v. Russell iii. 426 

AUnutt V. Ashcnden ii. 23 

AUoway v. Braine iii. 357 

AUwood V. Haseldon i. 270 

Almgren i>. Dutilh ii. 300 

Alna V. Henckell ii. 39 

u. Plummer iii. 12, 13, 232 

Alncr i>. George ii. 617 

Aloffy. Scrimshaw ii. 713 

Alsager, ex parte iii. 47 1 
V. St. Katherine's Dock 

Company ii. 293, 517 

Al.sop V. Commercial Ins. Co. ii. 368, 369 

V. Price iii. 509 

Alston V. Balls ii. 124 

V. Herring ii. 296 

V. Mechanics Ins. Co. ii. 403, 430 \ 

V. State Bank iii. 76 

Altham's case ii. 558, 559 

Althorfe v. Wolfe i. 108 

Alvanley «. Kinnaird ni. 414,415 

Alves 0. Hodgson ii. 570 ; iii. 300 

Alvprd V. Smith i. 154 

Ambler v. Bradley i. 161 

Amer v. Longstrcth iii. 172, 174 

American Bank v. Doolittle i. 186 

V. Jenness i. 261 

American Ins. Co. o. Bryan ii. 378 

V. Center ii. 389 

V. Francia ii. 385 

t>. Griswoldii. 363, 371, 

372, 416 

V. Hutton ii. 366 

V. Robertshaw, ii. 478 

t'. Oakley i. 139 

V. Ogden ii. 277, 386, 

409, 410 

Amcry v. Rggers ii. 359 

Ames V. Chew iii. 500 

V. Dyer ii. 262 

V. Gilman iii. 470 

V. Milhvard ii. 695 

Amis V. The Louisa ii. 263 

Amherst Academy v. Cowls i. 454 

Amotliyst, The ii. 315 

Amiable Nancy i. 86; iii. 164, 183 

Amicable Society v. BoUand ii. 475, 482 

Amidown w. Osgood i. 170 

V. Woodman i. 283 

Amies v. Stevens ii. 160, 161 

Amor V. Pearon ii. 35, 36 

Amory v. Broderick i. 532, 538 

V. Coit ii. 405 

V. Francis iii, 512 

V. Gilman ii. 368, 356 

V. Jones ii. 380 

V. McGregor iii. 193 

Amstil, The ii. 264 

Ancrum v. Slone iii.- 105 

Ancher v. Bank of England i. 252 

Andendried u. Betteley ii. 795 

Anderson v. Anderson ii. 85 

u. Baker i. 235 

V. Bucktou iii. 223 

V. Burnett ii. 773 

V. Chick iii. 12 

V. Clark iii. 262 

V. Coonley i. 40 

V. Davis ii. 7 

u. Drake i. 274 

I/. Edie ii. 478 

0. Ewing iii. 217 

V. Fitzgerald ii. 469, 472 

V. Harold iii. 5 

V. Hawkins ii. 622 

V. Hodgson i. 533 

V. Mannon ii. 26 

u. Martindale i. 14, 17, 23, 31 

V. Miller i. 196 ; iii.. 479 

V. Pitcher ii. 540 

V. Kobsou i. 292 



Anderson v. Scott iii. 41 

V. Thornton ii. 360, 401, 402, \ 

U.Tompkins i. 178, 179, 184 I 
V. Turnpike Co. i. 29 

V. Van Akn i. 230 

V. Wallace ii. 697 

V. Wlieeler iii. 554 

Andree v. Fletcher ii. 359 

Andrew v. Allen i. 64 

V. Boughey ii. 619 

Andrewes v. Carstin i. 1 56 

Andrews v. Bcllield ii. 59 

u. Bond i. 226, 252 

V. Boyd i. 271 

V. Brown iii. 62, 403 

V. Dieterich ii. 773 

i;. Durant ii. 259, 519 

u. Essex Insurance Com- 
pany 11*374,375,420 
V. E^tes i. 55 
V. Franklin i. 249 
V. Hcrriot ii. 589, 607, 609 
V. His Creditors ii. 570 
V. Hoxie i. 272 
t. Jones i. 343 
V. Knceland i. 60, ■'iS5 
V. Palmer iii. 47 1 
V. Planters Bank i. 186 
V. Pondii. 570, 583, 584; iii. 108, 
110, 136. 
V. Wheaton i. 465 
Andrus v. Foster ii. 47 
Angel !>. McLi'Uan i. 311 
Angerstein v. Bell ii. 367 
V. Handson i. 505 
Angier v. Angiur i. 360 
V. Taunton Paper Manufac- 
turing Co. iii. 196 
Angus V. Rcdford ii. 696, 697 
Annandale i: Harris i. 337, 436 
Ann C. X'ratt, The ii. 284 
Ann D. Richardson, The ii. 331 
Annen v. Woodman ii. 358 
Anonymous i. 11, 58, 126, 224, 232 ; ii. 
203, 340, 586, 632, 681, 703 ; iii. 33, 
100, 109, 115, 126, 128, 132, 157, 
272, 457,461,470, 483,495. 
Ansell, ex paiie iii. 474 
V. Kobson iii. 491 
Anstey v. Harden iii. 24 
Anstruther v. Adair ii. 599 
Antarctic, The ii. 262 
Autonio t'. Clissey iii. 26 
Antram v. Chace i. 450 ; iii. 701 
Antrobus v. Smith i. 235, 236 ; iii. 360 
Appleby v. Dodd i. 390 ; ii, 338 
Applegate v. Jacoby ii. 503 
Appletou V, Binks i. 64 ; ii. 30 
u. Chase i. 451 
V. Donaldson ii. 1 18 
V. Fullerton iii. 219 

Appollon, The iii. 165 

Aquila, The ii. 320 

Araminta, The ii. 317 

Arangnrcn r. Scbolfield i. 292 

Aranzamendi v. La. lus. Co. ii. 388 

Archard v. Hornor ii. 34, 41 

Archer v. Baynos iii. 5, 13 

f. Uuuu ii. 739 

V. En^^lish ii. 638 

V. Hudson i. 136 

u. Jlaish ii. 750 

u. Putnam iii. 109 

0. WiUiams iii. 179 

V. Williamson ii. 697 

;;. Zeh iii. 42 

Archibald u. Merc. Ins. Co. ii. 376 

V. Thomas ii. .500 

Arden v. PuUen i. 501 

V. Tucker i. 22 

II. Watkins iii. 495 

Arding v. Lomax ii. 35 

Arey v. Stephenson iii. 69 

Argall V. Bryant iii. 92 

u. Smith i. 216 

Argcnbriglit f. Campbell iii. 363, 391, 396 

Aijivle V. Worthington ii. 271 

AnnudiUo, The ii. 283 

Armet v. Inness ii. 414 

Arinlield u. Tate i. 327 

Armigcr v. Clarke iii. 411 

Armirigton v. Barnet iii. 540, 544 

Arniisiead v. Butler ii. 738 

V. White ii. 147 

Armitage v. Insole i. 532 

Armitt v. Brcanie ii. 665, 699 

Arinroyd v. Union Insurance 

Company ii. 293 

Arms i\ Ashley i. 355 

Armstrong v. IBaldock i. 530 

V. Burrows ii. 556 

V. Christiani i. 283 

c. Hussey i. 168 

u. Lewis i. 156 

V. McDonald i. 310 

t. Percy iii. 165, 212, 214 

V. Kobinson i. 192 

V. Tolcr i. 100, 456, ii. 753 

r. Wlieeler iii. 467 

Ai'nold V. Arnold ii. 731 

V. Brown i. 179, 184, 199 ; iii. 513 

V. Downing iii. 71, 76 

V. Halenbake ii. 109 

V. Lyman i. 218, 468 

V Muynard iii. 485, 486 
!). Mayor of Poole ii.630; iii. 412 
V. Richmond Iron Works ii. 58.3 
o. Wainwriglit i. 151 

Arnot V. Biscoe i. j7'i 

Arnott V. Hughes i. 579 

V Kedfcrn iii. 105 
Arnsby c. Woodward i. 506 
Arrott V. Brown i. 86 



Arthur v. Barton i. 78 

V. The Schooner Cassius, ii. 295 

319, iii. 193 

V. "Wells i. 406 

Arton V. Booth i. 186; ii. 715 

Aseough's case i. 508 

Ash V. Putnam i. 608; ii. 772 

V. Savage i. 570 

Ashburner v. Balchen ii. 302, 303 

Ashburnham v. Thompson i. 122 

Ashby u. Ashby i. 129 

V. James iii. 77 

V. White iii. 217, 218 

Ashcroft V. Morrin iii' 14 

Asliford V. Hand iii. 188 

Ashhuist V. Montour Iron Co. iii. 421 

Ashley v. Ashley ii. 481 

u. Harrison iii. 181 

V. Pratt ii. 414 

Ashlin V. White ii. 775 

Aihmole v. Wainwright ii. 174 

Aspdin V. Austin ii. 44 

Aspinall v. Wake i. 131 

Associated Firemens Ins Co. 

V, Assum ii. 458 
Astin V. Parkin iii. 221 
Astley V. Reynolds i. 394; ii. 641 ; iii. 273 
V. W«ldon iii. 160, 161 
Aston V. Heavan ii. 219 
Astor V. Miller i. 232 
V. Price iii. 1 1 1 
u. Union Insurance Com- 
pany ii. 403, 536 
Atchinson o. Baker ii. 64, 66 
Atchison v. Gee ii. 756 
Athelstan v. Moon ii. 691 
Atherton v. Brown ii. 397 
Atkin V. Acton ii. 40 
V. Banvick i. 529, 609 
Atkins V. Boylston Fire and Marine 

Ins. Co. ii. 664, 665 

V. Cunvood i. 347, 348 

V. Hill i. 127 

V. Howe i. 589 

V. Tredgold iii. 80 

Atkinson, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Bayntun i. 440 

I,. Bell ii. 259 

V. Bouwens iii. 335 

V. Briudall iii. 486 

V. Brooks i. 259 

V. Brown ii. 535, 661 

V. Cotesworth ii. 334 

V. Elliott iii. 515 

1;. Jordon iii. 426, '428 

u. Malin ii. 259, 275 ; ui. 487 

V. Manks i. 248 

V. Ritchie i. 533, 564, 672 

V. Settrce i. 441, 442 

V. Teasdale ii. 743 

V. The State Bank ii. 725 

Atkyns v. Amber i. 97 

Atkyns v. Kinnier 

iii. 162 

V. Pearce 

i, 3U5 

Atlantic Ins. Co. u. Conard 

ii. 284 

V. Storrow 

ii. 378 

V. Wright 

ii. 4()2 

Atlas, The ii, 280, 282 

Atlee V. Backhouse i. 394, 439 ; ii. 686 

Attenboro v. McKonzie i. 250 

Attenborough, in re iii. 325 

Attila, The ii. 281 

Att'y-Gen. v. Alford i. 122 

V. Ansted i. 72 

V. Brooke i. 500 

V. Case ii. 349 

V. Ciapham ii. 500, 565 

u. Cleobury iii. 324 

V. Davy i. 142 

V. Day iii. 12, 391, 396 

V. Dimond iii. 335 

V. Dunn ii. 579 

V. Hope iii. 335 

V. Norstedt ii. 278 

V. Plate Glass Co. ii. 536 

V. Riddle i. 48 

V. Sands i. 119 

V. Shore ii. 565 

V. Sibthorp ii. 558 

V. Siddon i. 1U3 

V. Sitwell iii. 398 

Atwater v. Townsend ii. 590 ; iii. 436 

V. Woodbridge iii. 544 

Atwell V. Mayhow i. 43 

Atvvood V. Cobb ii. 552, 553, 6£1 

V. Emery ii. 498, 535 

V. Gillctt i. 199, 200 

V. Partridge iii. 506 

V. Vincent iii. 280 

V. Whittlesey iii. 113 

Atwood, ex parte iii. 465 

V. Clark i. 539 ; ii. 535, 661 

V. Munnings i. 42, 61 

V. Small i. 73, 782 

V. Taylor ii. 636; iii. 104 

li. iii. 361 

Attwool V. Attwool ii. 740 
Aubert v Maze ii. 698, 701 
Aubin !). Bradley i. 538 
Ault V. Goodrich iii. 89 
Auriol V. Mills iii. 491, 492 
V. Thomas iii. 134 
Aurora Borealis The, v, Dobbie ii. 272 
Austen v. Wihvard i. 28 
Austin V. Crawford iii. 190 
Austin, ex parte iii. 47 1 
V. Bostwick iii. 81 
u. Boyd i. 243 
V. Burns i. 248 
V, Caverley iii. 446 
V, Charlostbwn Female Semi- 
nary i. 329 
0. Drew ii. 444, 445 
V. Hall i. 26 



Austin V. Johnson 

iii. 448 

Bacon v. Brown i 


32, 780 

V. Lamar 

i. 135 

V. Charlton 

ii. 639 

V. Sawyer 

iii. 33 

V. Cranson 

ii. 712 

u. The M., S., & L 


V. Dubarry 

ii. 692 

Co. ii. 237, 

245, 246, 248 

V. Dyer 


272, 273 

V. Wilson i. 


367; iii. 173 

I). Simpson 

iii. 296 

Australian Royal Mail 

Steam Nav. 

y. Sondley 

i. 63 

Co. V. Marze'tti 

i. 139 

Bacot V, Parnell 

ii. 129 

Auworth V. Johnson 

i. 503 

Badcock, ex parte 

iii. 463 

Avei'liue v. Whisson 

i. 113 

Baddeiey v. Mortlock, 

ii. 65, 70 

Averill v. Hedge 

i. 484 

Badeley v. Vigurs 

ii. 659 

V. Irish 

ii. 120 

Badger, In re 

ii. 703 

V. Loueks 


151 ; iii. 448 

V, Ocean Ins. Co 

ii. 392 

Ayery v. Baum 

ii. 797 

i\ Phinney 


318, 320 

V. Bowden 

ii. 305 

u. Titcomb 

iii. 189 

V. Cheslyn 

i. 512 

Badlam v. Tucker 


120, 275 

V. Fitch 

iii. 189 

Badnall v. Samuel 

i. 285 

V. Lauve 

i. 147 

Bage, ex parte 

iii. 465 

I!. Scott 

ii. 709 

Bagg V. Jefferson 

ii. 737 

V. Stewart i. 283 

; ii 

649, 664, 666 

Baglehole o. Walters 

i. 590 ; ii. 273 

Avcson V. Kinnaird 

ii. 466 

Bagley v. Peddie 

iii. 158, 

160, 162 

.\wde V. Dixon 

i. 242, 251 

V. Smith 

i. 195 

Ayer v. Bartlett 

i. 537 

Baikie v. Chandless 

i. 114 

V. Chase 

ii, 52 

Bailey v. Adams 

ii. 25, 26 

V. Hawkins 

ii. 630 ; iii, 76 

V. Bamberger 

i. 320 

V. Hutchins 

i. 257, 260 

V. BidwcU 

i. 242 

u. Spring 

iii. 223 

o. Bussing 

i. 37 

V. Warren 

i. 367 

V. Damon 

ii. 2S7 

V. Wilson 

i. 367 

V. Day 

ii. 618 

Avers v. Hewitt 


. 329 ; ii. 782 

V. Freeman 


6; iii. 16 

Aylctt V. Ashton 

iii. 401, 413 

tj. Hastings 

iii. 221 

V. Bennett 

iii. 349 

w. Mogg 

ii. 56 

Avliffe V. Archdale 

i. 313 

V. Ogden 

iii. 513 

u. Tracy 

ii. 72 ; iii. 30 

V. Porter 

i. 283 

Aymar v. Ashtor 

ii. 169, 308 

V. Quint 

ii. 207 

V. Sheldon 

i. 276 

u. Shaw 

iii. 253 

Aynsworth, ex parte 

iii. 160 

V. Simonds 

ii. 661 

Aylon V. Bolt 

iii. 65 

V. Smith 
V. Taylor 

i. 527 
ii. 724 


V. The Mayor of New York iii. 529 

BaileyviUe v. Lowell 

i. 444 

Babb V. Clemson 

i. 529 

Baillie v. Kell 

ii. 40 

Babcock v. Beman 

i. 253 

Baily v. Curling 

ii. 696 

V. Hawltins 

ii. 681 

V. Merrell 

ii. 778 

V. Herbert 

ii. 169 

Bainbridge v. Firmston 

i. 447 

u. Montgomery 

Ins. Co. ii. 

V. Neilson 


383, 391 

444, 446 

V, Pinhorn 

in. 472 

V, Stone 

i. 185 

V. Wade 

ii. 7; 

iii. 15, 16 

V. Thompson 

ii. 756 

V. Wilcox 

iii. 151 

V. Weston 

iii. 439 

Baines v. Holland 

ii. 390 

V. Wilson 

i. 451 

V. Jevons 

iii. 44 

Bach V. Owen 

i. 532, 538 

V. Woodfall 

i. 476 

Bochelder v. Fiske 

i. 31, 32 

Baird v. Folliyer 

iii. 158 

Baclielour v. Gage 

iii. 492 

v. Mathews 

i. 582 

Bai'liurst v. Clinckard 

i. 207 

Bakeman i'. Pooler 

ii. 643 

Backhouse u. Mohun 


389, 409, 415 

Baker, ex parte 

iii. 512 

u. Sneed 

ii. 160 

V. Adams 

i. 514 

Backman v. Wright 

i. 456 

V. Baker 

ii. 562 

Backus V. Lebanon 

iii. 540, 544 

I'. Barney 

i. 36 

; iii. 462 

V, Minor 

iii. 152 

V. Boston 

iii. 556 

V. The Marengo 

ii. 290 

V. Brown 

ii. 743 

Bacon, ex parte 

iii. 479 

u. Cartwright 

ii. 66 



Baker v. Cook 

iii. 271 

V. Corey 

ii. 57, 338 

V. Dale 

iii. 348 

». Dewey 

ii. 715 

V. Fuller 

iii. 259 

t>. Gray 

ii. 258, 274 

V. Higgins 

ii. 515 

V. Hoag 

ii. 97 

V. Jacob 

i. 442 

u. Jardine 

iii. 299 

V. Jordan 

iii. 32 

II. Keen 

i. 300, 446 

V. Ludlow 

ii. 424 

V Manufacturers Ins. Co. 

Ii. 308, 376 

V. Newton ii. 558 

V. N. Y. Cent. E. K. Co. ii. 225 

V. Stackpoole ii. 632 

V. Wheaton iii. 439, 440, 442, 

443, 455 

V. White ii. 73 

c. Wimpee i. 213 

V. Woodruff ii. 134 

Bilker's Appeal i. 204 

Balch !i. Smith i. 227 

ex parte ii. 726 

Balconi v. Richards iii. 85 

IBaldey v. Parker i. 495, 531 ; iii. 41 

Baldney !>. Ritchie ii. 275 

Baldwin v. Bank of La. i. 288 ; ii. 104 

v. Bank of Newbury iii. 441 

V. Munn iii. 229, 230 

V. N. Y. Ins. Co. ii. 474 

V. Palmer iii. 59 

V. Society for Dif. of Useful 

Knowledge iii. 375, 404 

V. Williams iii. 51 

Baldy v. Stratton ii. 68, 70 

Balfc V. West ii. 98, 103 

Ball V. Coggs iii. 369, 410, 411 

V. Dunsterville i. 110 

V. Gilbert ii. 756 

V. Newton i. 475 

K. Stanley ii. 622, 645 

V. Storie ii. 494 

Ballard v. Child i. 232 

B. Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 362 

V. Noaks ii. 681 

!). Oddey iii. 116 

V. Walker iii. 9 

Ballinger v. Edwards iii. 126, 147 

Ballon V. Talbot i. 6S 

Balmain v. Sbore i. 150, 200 

Balmanno v. Lumley iii. 401 

Balme v. Button iii. 479, 484 

Baltimore, The ii. 318 

Bait. Citizens Bank v. Howell 1. 238 

Baltimore & Susquehannah R. B. Co. 

V. Nesbit iii. 552 

Bamford y. Burrell iii. 511 

V. Harris ii. 741 

V. lies ii. 16 

Bamford v. Shuttleworth i. 79 

Bamgardener v. The Circuit Coort iii. 552 
Bamptou v. Paulin iii. 28 

Banbury, ex parte iii. 490 

Banchor v. Cilley i. 133 

Bancroft v. Dumas i. 459 

V. Hall i. 275 

Bancroft's Case i. 676 

Bandy v. Cartwright i. 500 

Banglay, ex parte iii. 508 

Bangor v. Coding ii. 207 

V. Warren ii. 624 

Bank v. Treat i. 1 2 

Bangs V. Mosher ii. 25, 28 

V. Strong ii. 26 

Bank v. CuiTy ii. 724 

«. McChord ii. 724 

V. Myers i. 285 

V. Spicer ii. 624 

of Augusta V. Earle ii. 668 

Australasia v. Bank of Aus- 
tralia i. 457 
Cape Fear v. Seawell i. 283 
Catskill i>. Messenger i. 28 
Chenango v. Osgood i. 28 
V. Root i. 163 
Chillicothe v. Dodge iii. 399 
Columbia u. Fitzhugh ii. 538 
V. Laurence i. 281 
V. Patterson's Ad- 
ministrator i. 110, 139; ii. 57 
Commerce K. Union I3ank i.264 
England, ear porte iii. 517 
Galiopolis V. Trimble ii. 592 
Ireland v. Beresford iii. 495 
Lansingburg v. Crary iii. 33 
Louisiana !'. Tournillon i. 281 
Metropolis v. Guttschlick i. 52 
... N. E. Bank 

ii. 104; iii. 264 
Middlebury v. Rut. & W. 

R. R. Co. i. 110 

Mobile V. King i. 62 

Monroe v. Strong iii. 121 

Montgomery v. Walker i. 267 
North America I-. M' Call ii. 612 
U.Wheeler ii. 607 
Orleans v. Smith ii. 104 

Pittsburg V. Neal i. 62 

Rochester y. Jones i. 98 ; iii. 259 
Salina n. Babcock i. 258 

Sandusky v. Scoville i. 258 

St. Albans w. F. & M. Bank i.264 
V. Scott iii. 130 

South Carolina u. Myers i. 279 
The State v. Bank of Capo 

Fear i. 272 ; iii. 532 

Tennessee v. Johnson i. 256 

United States v. Binney i. 182 

V. Cameal i. 266 

V. Dandridge 

i. 139 



Bank of TJnited States u. Davis i. 75, 77, 

V. Donally ii. 570, 
589, 590 
i/. Dunseth iii. 222 
0. Halstead iii. 4f6 
V. Leathers i. 287 
V. Lyman i. 63 
«- Owens iii. 108, 
109, 128 
V. Waggener 

iii. 108, 109 

Utica V. Bender i. 278, 279 

v. McKinster ii. 103 

V. Pliillips iii. IS-l 

V. Smith i. 274, 539 

V. Wager iii. 130, 134 

Washington v. Neale ii. 104 

V. Triplet ii. 538 

Watertown v. Assessors of 

Banks v. Adams 
V. Martin 
V. Mitchell 
V. Pike 
V. Walker 
V. Werts 
V. White 
Bannes v. Colo 
Bannister v. Read 
Banorgee v. Hovey 
Banton v. Hoomes 

iii. 545 

ii. 690 

i. 78 

i. 165 
ii. 739 

i. 397 
ii. 7.t7 

i. 501 

i. 701 

ii. 523 

, 47, 110 

ii. 738 

Baptist Church v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. 
V. Stirling 
Barante v. Gott 
Barber, ex parte 

V. Andover 

V. Barber 

V. Brace 

u. Briton 

V. Butcher 

V. Fox 

V. Gingell 

V. Hartford Bank 

V. Pott 

V. Root 
Barbin v. Police Jury 
Barclay, ex parte 
V. Bailey 

V. Cousins 
V. Kennedy 
V. Lucas 

qui tarn v. Walmsley 
Barden v. Koverberg 
Bardwell v. Lydall 
V. Perry 
Barefoot, The 
Barfoot v. Freswell 
Barger v. Collins 
Bargctt V. Orient Ins. Co. 
Barickman v. Kuykendall 

ii. 350 

ii. 361 

ii. 599 

i. 235 

iii 540 

iii. 89 

ii. 327, 538 

i. 43 

ii. 481 

i. 127, 442 

i. 49 

i. 206 

ii. 617 

ii. 605 

iii. 217 

iii. 512 

i. 266 

ii. 362 

iii. 152 

ii. 20 

iii. 136 

i. 367 

Ii. 4, 6 

i. 205, 212 

ii. 316 

ii. 511 

i. 226 

ii. 357 

iii. 13 


Baring v. Christie 

u. Clark 

u. Corie 

V. Lyman 
Barker v. Binninger 

V. B lakes 

V. Braham 

V. Bucklia 

u. Cassidy 

V. Cheriot 

V. Clarke 

V. Goodair 

V, Harrison 

V. Hodgson 

V. Lees 

V. Mar. Ins. Co. 

V. Parker 

u. Plioenix Ins. Co. 

V. Pittsburgh 

V. Richardson i 

V. Roberts 

0. Smart 

V. St. Quintin 

V. Sutton 

V, Vansommer 

V. Windle 
Barklie v. Scott 
Barksdale i\ Brown 
Barley v. Walford 
Barlow v. Bishop 

I'. Leekie 

u. Ocean Ins. Co. 

V. Planters Bank 

V. Scott 

V. Wainwright 
Barnard v. Adams 

V. Bartholomew 
V. Bridgeman 
V. Cushing 
V. Eaton 
u. Godscall 
11. Poor 
V. Yates 
V. Young 
Barnchurst u. Cabbot 
Barnell v. Minot 
Barnes, ex parte 

v. Bartlett 

V. Cole 

V. Gorham 

V. Hedloy i. 433 

o. Holcomb 

V. Marsliall 

V. Parker 

V. Perine i. 

V. Taylor 

V. Worlich 
Barnesley r. Powell 
Barnet v. Gilson 

V. Smith 
Barnett, ex parte 

ii 513 

i. 287 

i. 98 ; ii. 796 

i. 165 

ii. 794 

ii. 399 

i. 53 ; ii. 735 

iii. 22, 26 

iii. 93 

ii. 294 

i. 278 

i. 199, 212 

i. 492 

ii. 305 

ii. 711 

i. 86 

ii. 20, 21 

ii. 327, 396, 

397, 399 

iii. 530 

27, 186, ii. 617 

ii. 135 

iii. 332 

ii. 713 

ii. 658 

iii. 109 

ii. 302 

i. 147, 189 

i. 51 

ii. 776 

i. 251, 352 

ii. 352 

i. 438 

i. 283 

i. 475 

i. 509 

ii. 325 

iii. 69, 103 

i. 78 

ii. 514 

i. 571 

iii. 492 

iii. 165, 174 

i. 584 

iii. 112 

i. 442 

i. 34 

iii. 474 

iii. 2113 

11. 230, 309 

i. 248 

1, 434; iii. 119 

i. 569 

ii. 206 

ii. 699 

452, 453, 454 

ii. 265 

iii. 131 

iii. 461 

ii. 692 

i. 267 

iii. 464 



flamett v. Goings i. 369, 378 

1). Lambert i. 57 

V. Stanton i. 587 ; ii. 776, 780 

Bnrgettt v. Orient Ins. Co. ii. 3.57 

Barnewall v. Church ii. 37.^, 408, 413 

Barney v. Bliss, ii. 646 

V. Brown i. .'531 

V. Coffin ii. 3.'j6 

i;. Currier i. 188 

V. Frowner Hi. 223 

V. Griffin iii. 448, 449 

I!. Maryland Ins. Co. ii. 383 

V. Patterson ii. 727 ; iii. 1 2 

V. Prentiss ii. 252 

V. Sannders i. 122; iii. 466 

I). Smith i. 188, 201 

Bams V. Gr.iham ii. 646, 654 

Barnum v. Childa iii. 28 

V. Vandusen iii. 223 

Baron v. Abeel iii. 221 

V. Husband i. 221 

Barough v. White i. 260 

Barr w. Hill i. 431 

V. Lapsley iii. 376 

V. Marsh i. 279 

i;. Myers i. 534 ; ii. 649, 650 

Barrat v. Allen i. 283 

Barrell v. Tnissell iii. 25 

Barrells of Oil ii. 318, 320 

Barret v. Hampton ii. 756 

Barrett v. Allen ii. 649, 6K6 

V. Barrett ii. 735, 736, 745 

V. Buxton i. 384 ; iii. 417 

V. Charleston Bank i. 279 

V. Deere ii. 615, 640 

V. Button ii. 305 

V. French ii. 504 

V. Goddard i. 528, 603 

V. Hall i. 583 

V. Jermy ii. 426 

V. Lewis ii. 631 

11. Pritchard i. 537 

V. Stockton &c. Railway ii. 507 

V. Swan i. 166, 182 

V. Thorndike ii. 724 
V. Union M. F. Ins. Co. 1. 226 ; ii. 
441, 459 

Barrick v. Buba ii. 305 

Barnnger v. King ii. 612 

V. Sneed ii. 553 

Barrow, ex parte iii. 462 

u. Paxton i. 569; ii. 112 

V. Richard iii. 376 

Barry's Case i. 398 

Barry v. La. Ins. Co. ii. 378 

V. Nesham i. 162 

V. Ransom ii. 552 

Barstow v. Adams iii. 470 

V. Bennett ii. 21 

V. Gray ii. 9 

V. Hiriart i. 283 

Bartholomew v. Jackson ii. 57, 97 

Bartlett v. Camley 

ii. 287 

V. Jones 

i. 161 

V. Knight 

ii. 610 

V. Mayor 

ii. 579 

V. Pearson 

i. 227 

V. Pentland 

i. 81 

ii. 541, 544, 


V. Smith iii. 324, 341 

t;. Van Zandt i. 342 

V. Vinor i. 458 ; ii. 747 

V. Williams i. 530; iii. 135 

V. Wyman i. 391 

Bartley v. Richtmyer ii. 71 

Hartley, the ii. 320 

Barton v. Baker i. 279 

V. Fitzgerald ii. 502, 508 

V. Glover iii. 162 

V. Hanson i. 174 

ti. McKelway ii. 536,' 541, 542 

V. Tower iii. 447 

V. Wolliford ii. 163 

Bartram v. Caddy iii. 308 

V. Farebrother i. 609 

Barwis, ex parte iii. 462 

Bash V. Bash iii. 231 

Bashford v. Shaw ii. 29 

Bashore v. Whistler i. 574 

Baskerville v. Brown ii. 742 

Baskia v. Seechrist i. 507 

Bason v. Hughart iii. 23 

Bass V. Bass iii. 90 

V. Olive i. 264 

». Clivley iii. 356 

V. Smith iii. 62 

Basset v. CoUis i. 591 

V. Keme ii. 650 

Basten v. Butter ii. 740 

Bastow V. Bennett ii. 21 

Batchelder v. Batchelder ii. 605 

V. Sanborn ii. 797 

u. Sturgis iii. 228 

Bate V. Burr i. 63; iii. 103 

V. Cartwright ii. 627 

Bates, ex parte iii. 462 

V. Bates ii. 646 

u. Churchill ii. 645 

t>. Coe iii. 426 

V. Cort i. 449, 460 

V. Delavan i. 495 

V. Dandy iii. 482 

V. Enwright i. 356 

V. James i. 208 

V. Moore iii. 39 

V. Stanton ii. 142, 204 ; iii. 253 

V. Todd ii. 929 

V. Watson i. 734 

Bath, ex parte iii. 460 

Bathe v. Taylor iii. 306 

Batson v. Donovan ii. 203, 242, 244, 252 

Batteiaby v. Gale ii. 259 

Battin !>. Bigelow iii. 220 

Battishill II. Reed iii. 219 



Battle V. Rochester City 


ii. 681 

Beach v. Olmstead 

i. 580, 5,86 

Battley v. Faulkner 

iii. 92 

V. Ranney 

iii. 177 

Batty V. Lloyd 

iii. 141 

V. State Bank 

i. 185, 267 

V. McCuiidie 

i. 146 

Beaehey v Brown 

ii. 68 

Bauchor v. Cilley 

i. 157 

Beal V. Alexander 

i. 284 

Baudier, ex parte 

i. 211 

V. Nason 

iii. 557 

Bauduy v. XJnion Ins. Co. 

ii. 361 

V. Wyman 

ii. 558 

Baugher v. Nelson 

iii. 552 

Beale v. Beale 

ii. 694 

Baum V. Stevens 

i. 581 

17. Coon 

ii. 745 

Bavington v. Clarke 


t7. Hayes 

iii. 162 

Baxendale v. Eastern C. 



ii. 175 

V. Nind 

iii. 62 

V. Hart 

ii. 252 

V. Paris 

i. 279 

Baxter v. Baxter 

ii. 85 

V. Sanders 

i. 505 

V. Bradbury 



; iii. 224 

V. Slaughter 

i. 282 

o. Connolly 

iii 368 

V. Thompson 

ii. 306 

t/. Earl of Portamouth i. 

384, 385 ; 

Bealey v. Greenslade 

iii. 77 

iii. 461 

Beall V. Beall 

i. 336 

V. Leland 



296, 541 

V. Joseph 

i. 412 

v: Little 

i. 215 

Beals V. Guernsey 

iii. 106 

V. New England 



ii. 405 

V. Olmstead 

i. 580, 586 

17. Nurse 

ii. 32 

V. Peck 

i. 283 

V. Penniraan 

iii. 74, 86 

V. Terry 

iii. 206 

V. People 

ii. 757 

Beaman v. Russell 

ii. 722 ; iii. 20 

V. Pritchard 

iii. 484 

Bean v. Atwater 

ii. 530 

V. Ryerss 

iii. 226 

V. Burbank 

i. 429, 525 

V. Wales 

i. 437 

V. Green 

ii. 2.i2 

Baxton v. Cornish 

iii. 342 

V. Herrick 

i. 462 

Bay V. Church 

i. 286 

V. Newberry 

ii. 691 

V. Cook 

i. 69, 125 

V, Simpson 

i. 535 

V. Coddington 


251, 259 

V. Stupart 

ii. 352, 401 

V. Gunn 

i. 293 

V. Sturtevant 

ii. 168, 182 

Bayard v. Lathy 

i. 267 

Beane v. The Mazurka 

ii. 317 

V. Shunk 


265, 622 

Bearce v. Barstow 

in. 122 

Bayley v. Ashton 

iii. 77 

Beard v. Dennis 

ii. 753 

V. Bradley 

ii. 797 

V. Kirk 

i. 70 

17. Culverwell 

i. 526 

t). Linthicum 

iii. 356, 392 

V. Edwards 


608, 726 

V. Webb 

i. 366 

V. Gouldsmith 

i. 539 

Beardeslcy v. Baldwin 

i. 249 

V. Homan 

ii. 683 

Beardsley v. Richardson 

ii. 105 

V. Lawrence 

i. 504 

17. Southmayd 

ii. 592 

V. Leominster, 

iii. 368 

V. Swann 

iii. 167 

V. Kimmell 

ii. 32 

Bears v. Ambler 

i. 504 

Baylie v. Clare 

i. 395 

Bcarse v. Pigs of Copper 

ii. 316 

Baylies v. Eettyplace 


305, 675 

Beattie i'. Robin 

i. 530 

Bayliffe V. Butterworth 

i. 58, 8 

; ii. 539 

Beatty v. Gilraore 

ii. 233 

Baylis V. Attorney-General 


550, 563 

17. Randall 

ii. 789 

V. Dinely 



313, 326 

V. Wray 

i. 201 

V. Uslier 

ii. 201 

Beaty v. Knowler 

iii. 534 

Baylor v. Smithers 

i. 530 

Beaston v. Farmers Bank 

of Dela- 

Bayly v. Gaiford 

i. 27 


iii. 514 

V. Grant 

ii. 339 

Beaubien v. Beaiibion 

iii. 354 

V. Schofield 

i. 596 

Bcauchamp v. Damory 

iii. 227 

Baynes v. Fry 

iii. 135 

Beaufoi-t v. Neeld 

i. 42 

Baynham v. Guy's Hospital 

i. 500 

Beaumont, ex parte 

iii. 471 

Baynon v. Batley 

i. 360 

V. Fell 

ii. 550, 564 

Bay State, The 

ii. 312 

V. Greathead 

ii. 618 

Bazin v. Richardson 

ii. 295 

V. Meredith 

i. 203 

Beach v. Beach 

iii. 220 

V. Reeve 

i. 436 

V. Berdell 

ii. 94 

Beavan v. Delahay 

i. 510 

V. Forsyth 

i. 94 

Beaver v. Lewis 

i. 196 

V. Hotchkiss 

i. 164 

Beaver Co. v. Armstrong 

i. 291 

V. Native, The 

ii. 261 

Beck u. Evans 

ii. 241, 244 



Beck- V, Rohow 
I). Rohley 
Beck & Jackson, In re 
Becketf v. Taylor 
Beokfonl v. Wado 
Beckham v. Drake 

Beckley v. Munson 
Beckman v. Shouse 

i. 513 

i. 253, 261 

ii. 707 

ii. 690 

ii. 592 

i. 8, 54, 55, 63 ; iii. 

162, 498 

i. 34 

ii. 125, 168, 237, 

253, 254 

Beckwith v. Benner iii. 293 

V. Blown iii. 426 

u. Cheever i. 481,484 

Bcdam v. Clerkson ii. 690, 692 

Beddingfield v. Asliley iii. 141 

Beddoc's Ex'r o. Wadsworth i. 129 

Bedel v. Powell iii. 176 

Bedell v. Janney iii. 1 04 

Bedell's Case ii. 555 

Bedford i'. Brutton iii. 469 

Bee, The ii. 316 

Beebe v. Dudley ii. 23, 29 ; iii. 21 

V. Elliott ii. 732 

V. Robert i. 63, 585 

Beecham v. Dodd i. 156, 189 

Beeching v. Westbrook iii. 295 

Beecker v. Beecker i. 128, 221 

Beed v. Blandford ii. 679 

Beek v. Robley i. 214 

Beekraan v. Saratoga & Schenectady 

R. R. Co. iii. 537, 542 

Beekman v. Wilson iii. 486 

Beeler v. Young i. 295, 296, 313 

Beeraan v. Buck i. 581 

Beer v. Beer i. 22 

Beers v, Crowell iii. 51 

V. Haughton iii. 436, 443 

V. Housatonic R, B. Co. ii. 172 

V. Reynolds i. 216 

V. Robinson i. 468 

Beeston v. CoUyer ii. 32 

Beete r. Bidgood iii. HO 

Begbie i'. Levi ii. 758, 765 

Begg V. Forbes ii. 493 

Behaly v. Hatch ii. 643 

Behren v. Bremer ii. 697 

Beilby, ex parte iii. 499 

Bcirne v. Dord i. 585, 586 

Belcher v. Campbell iii. 479 

f. Lloyd iii. 483, 515 

V. Mcintosh i. 504 

u. Prittie iii- 486 

u. Sikes iii. 327 

Belcheir, ex parte iii. 465, 468, 471 

V. Parsons iii. 465, 469 

V. Reynolds iii. 378 

Beldon v. Seymour ii. 554 

Belding u. Pitkin ii. 746, 767 

Beldon v. Campbell _ i. 78 

Belknap v. Nevins ii. 340 

V. Wendell i. 157 

Bell, ex parte iii. 508 

Bell V. Bell ii. 361, 365, 403, 555 

V. Bruen ii. 4, 502, 583 

D, Chaplain i. 20 

0. Crawford iii. 66 

i;. Cunningham i. 49, 86 ; iii. 192 

V. Francis i. 145 

V. Gipps ii. 696 

w. Hagerstown Bank i. 281, 282 

I'. Hoi'ton ii. 742 

V. Kellar i. 368, ii. 13 

u. Leggett iii. 523 

V. Locke i. 154 

V. Marine Ins. Co. ii. 365 

V. Martin ii. 18 

ti. MoiTison iii. 66, 68, 71, 81, 84 

V. Moss i. 596, 597, 601, 607 

V. Newman i. 212 

u. Palmer iii. 193 

V. Phynn i. 127 

V. Quin i. 459 

V. Reed ii. 406, 407, 408 

V. Smith ii. 331, 766 

V. Speight i. 131 

K. Twilight ii. 790 

V. Welch ii. 7 

Bellairs v. Ebsworth ii. 19 

Bellemere v. Bank of IT. S. ii. 104 

Bello Corrunnes ii. 322 

Bellows & Peck, In re iii. 513 

V. Lovell ii. 23, 25 

V. Stone iii. 397 

Bellringer v. Blagrave iii. 406 

Belote V. Wynne iii. 83 

Belshaw v. Bush iii. 75 

Belton, ex parte iii. 518 

V. Hodges i. 314 ; iii. 462 

Belworth v. Hassell i. 541 

Beman v. Tugnot i. 457 

Bement v. Smith iii. 209 

Beraie v. Vandever i. 202 

Bemis v. Smith iii. 483 

Bench v. Merrick ii. 67 

V. Sheldon i. 579 

Bend v. Hoyt i. 79 

Benden v. Manning ii. 102 

Bender v. Fromberger iii. 224, 226 

Bendernagle v. Cocks iii. 188, 189 

Benedict v. Beebee iii. 34 

V. Caffee i. 279 

V. Davis i. 174 

V. Field i. 553 

u. Lynch iii. 387 

u. Montgomery ii. 798 

V. Morse i. 514 

V. Smith i. 51 

Benfield v. Solomons iii. 126, 508 

Benham v. Bishop i. 323, 324 

V. United Ins. Co. ii. 403 

Benjamin v. Benjamin i. 3^7 ; iii. 201 

V. Groot iii. 97 

V. Sinclair ii. 290 

V. Tillman i 250 



B. F. Bruce, The 
Benner3 v. Howard 
Bennet, ex parte 
V. Davis 
V. Jenkins 
11. Mellor 
V. Paine 
V. Pixley 
Bennett, ex parte 
a. Alcott 
V. Bittle 
V. Davis 
V. Dntton 
V. Filyaw 
t. Francis 
u. Gandy 
V. Holmes 
V. Hull 
V. Lockwood 

ii. 338 

i. 532 

iii. 512 

iii. 499, 500 

iii. 224, 226 

ii. 149, 150 

i. 439 

ii. 532 

i, 87; iii. 517 

iii. 223, 498 

i. 508 

i. 295 

ii. 225, 226 

ii. 216 

ii. 638 

iii. 472 

ii. 731, 732 

iii. 54 

iii. 182 

P. & 0. Steamboat Co. ii. 225, 
iii. 16 
ii. 554 
id. 34 
i. 537 
iii. 351 
i. 187 
i. 502 
163, 202; ii. 674 
i. 279 

„. Pratt 
V. Ryan 
V. Scott 
V. Sims 
V. Smith 
V. Stickney 
1/. Womack 
I'. Woolfolk 
V. Young 

Bennington i;. Dinsraore 1. 2.50 

Bcnnison v. Jewison iii. 287, 315, 341 

Bennoy v. Pegram 

Benson v. Blunt 

V. Flower 

V. Heathom 

V. Parry 

V. The Mayor, 

V. Kemington 
Bent V. Hartshorn 
V. Manning 
V. Puller 
Bentall v. Bum 
Bentaloe v. Pratt 
Bentham v. Cooper 
Beiitley v. Columbia Ins. Co. 
Bcntly V. Griffin 
Benton v. Bargot 

V. Chamberlain 
Benyon v. Nettlcfold 
Bcrard v. Berard 
Beresford, ex parte 
Bergen v. Bennett 

i>. Bei-astrom 
Berkeley v. Watling i. 
Berkley v. Hardy 
Berkshire Bank v. Jones 

Woollen Co. v. Proctor ii. 149, 


Bermon v. Woodbridge 

Bornal v. Pyra 

i. 94 

ii. 305 

iii. 497 

ii. 268 

iii. 135 

of New , 

iii. 530, 536 

i. 304, 308 

ii. 22 

i. 295, 298 

i. 531 

iii. 43, 488 

ii. 357, 411 

iii. 16 

ii. 444 

i. 348 

ii. 609 

i. 168 

i. 456 

i. 402 

iii. 481 

i. 72 

ii. 306 

289, 607 ; ii. 290 

i. 110 

i. 278 

ii. 358 
iii. 254 

Bernard v. Toirance i. 145 

Bernie u. Vandever i. 1 73 

Bcrolles v. llamsay i. 298 

Berrcdge, ex /inrie iii. 471 

Berrill n. Smith ii. 759 

Berry v. Alderman i. 290 

V. Bates ii. 713 

V. Co.K iii. 413 

i;. Mutual Ins. Co. iii. 477 

V. Robinson i. 256, 277 

V. Scott ii. 56 

V. Vreeland iii. 175 

Berthoud v. Atlantic Ins. Co. ii. 350, 420 

Bertie l\ Falkland iii. 157 

Bertrand v. Bavkman i. 259 

Busch o. Frolich i. 199 

Besford r. Saunders i. 324, 381, 382 

Bessey v. Evans ii. 305 

V. Windham ii. 782 

Best V. Barber i. 308 

u. Givens i. 324 

V, Jolly i. 455 

V. Lawson ii. 735 

V. Osborne i. 591 

V. Saunders ii. 333 

V. Stow i. 492; iii. 357, 414 

Bctesworth ?;. Dean and Chapter of 

St. Paul's iii. 3.53 

Betsey v. Rhoda i. 391 ; ii. 339 

The ii. 283 

Betterbee v. Davis ii. 641 

Betts V. Bagley iii. 440, 442 

t. Gibbins i. 37,81, 601 

u. Lee iii. 2U0 

Bevan v. Lewis i. 181, 183 

V. Waters iii. 251 

Bevans v, Rees ii. 641, 644 

V. Sullivan i. 164 

Beverley's case i. 383 

Beverley v. Beverley i. 5.j5 

Beverly v. Burke iii. 22 

V. The Lincoln Gas Light 

and Coke Co. i. 139, 539 

Beverleys v. Holmes i. 429 

Bevin c. Conn. Ins. Co. ii. 474, 478, 480 

Be.xwell v. Christie i. 498 

Bianchi v. Nash i. 539 

Biays 0. Chesapeake Ins. Co. ii. 384 

h. Union Ins. Co. ii. 403 

Bibb V. Saunders ii. 738 

Bickciton V. Burrell i. 65 

Bicklbrd v. Gibbs ii. 7, 23, 29 

u. Page iii. 224 

Bidault V. Wales ii. 770, 773 

Biddell i\ Dowse i. 449, 451 

Biddlecomb v. Bond i. 596 ; ii. 7, 501 

Biddlup V. Poole i. 429 

Bidwell V. Northwestern Ins. Co. ii. 355, 

384, 401, 452 

Biffin V. Yorke iii. 461 

Bigelow V. Baldwin ii. 681 

V. Benton ii. 4 



BigelDW V. Davis 

i. 4fi8 

V. Dennison 

i. 49, 52 

V. Folger 

iii. 483 

V. Grannis 


32.3, 324 

<i. Heatoii 


207, 293 

V. Huntley 
V. Jones 

i. 537 
iii. 226 

V. Kinney 
V. Loring 

i. 328 
ii. .500 

V. Maynard 
V. Pritchard 

ii. 694 
iii. 513 

V. Wilson i. 224, 228; ii. 663 

Biggs V. D wight iii. 340, 349 

V. Hanscll ii. 691, 707 

V. Lawrence ii. 570, 754 

v. Wisking ii. 520 ; iii. 44 

Bigler v. N. T. Ins. Co. ii. 458 

Bilbie v. Lumley i. 437 ; li. 416 

Biles V. Holmes ii. 124 

Bill V. Bament iii. 6, 41 

V. Curetoa i. 370 

V. Mason ii. 367 

V. Porter ii. 625 

Billings V. Billings ii. 85 

V. Tolland Co. Ins. Co. ii. 403, 

426, 429 

Billon I'. Hyde iii. 478 

Bingham v. AUport ii. 640 

V. Bingham iii. 398 

V. Maxcy i. 574 

V. Rogers ii. 237, 240, 256 

V. Sessions i. 393 

Binks V. Lord Eokeby iii. 401 

Binney v. Le Gal i. 1 9 1 

Binnington, v. Wallis i. 436 

Birch, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Depeyster ii. 536, 739, 740 

V. Earl of Liverpool i. 529 

V. Sharland i. 381 

■;. Tebbutt u. 631 

V. The Earl of Liverpool, ii. 44 ; iii. 


Birchett v. Boiling iii. 366, 371 

Bhrd V. Adams iii. 86 

V. Astcock ii. 202 

<;. Bird ii. 690 

». Blosse ii. 72 ; iii. 30 

V. Boulter i. U3; iii. 11, 12 

V. Bi-own i. 50, 53, 597 

V. Caritat iii. 453, 455 

V. Cromwell ii. 162 

ti. Gammon i. 218, 221 ; iii. 23, 69 

V. Hempstead iii. 497 

V. Jones >. 354 

V. Le Blanc i. 278 

V. Muhlenbrink iii. 55 

V. Pierpoint iii. 453, 455 

Birdseye v. Flint i- 367 

V. Ray i. 208 

Birge v. Gardener ii. 231 

Birkenhead, Lancashire, & Cheshire 

Railway v. Pilcher i. 334, 336 

VOL. I. D 

Birkett, ex parte 

iii. 511 

V. WiUan 

ii. 242 

Birkloy v. Prosgrave i. 

35; ii. 325, 328 

Birks V. Trippet 

ii. 696 

Birlcy v. Gladstone 

iii. 248 

Bisol V. Hobbs 

i. 176 

Bishop V. Bishop 

i. 512 

V. Breckels 

i. 196 

V. Chambre 

ii. 723 

V. Elliott 

i. 512 

V. Montague 

i. .53 

V. Sanford 

iii. 62 

u. Shepherd 

ii. 37 

u. Williamson 

ii. 145 

V. Wraith 

1. 500 

Bishop of Chester v. John Freeland i. 457 

Bissel V. Price 

ii. 290, 291 

Bissell V. Bissell 

ii. 664 

V. Briggs 

ii. 609, 610 

V. Edwards 

ii. 613 

f. Erwin 

iii. 226 

V. Hopkins 

i. 530, 570 

V. Morgan 

i. 290 

Bitncr v. Brough 

iii. 230 

Bitting & Waterman's Appeal ii. 795 

Bixby V. Franklin Ins. Co 

ii. 265, 275, 326 

V. Whitney 

i. 535 ; ii. 6.50 

Bi.xler v. Ream 

i. 442 

Bize V. Dickason 

iii. 483 

V. Fletcher 

ii. 352, 414 

Blacliford u. Christian 

ii. 774 

i>. Peltier 

iii. 557 

Black V. Ba.'vendale 

iii. 193 

V. Bush 

i. 204 

V. Cord 

iii. 356, 359 

u. Marine Ins. Co. 

ii. 379 

V. The Louisiana 

ii. 339, 344 

V. Smith 

ii. 641 

V. Webb 

i. 524 

Blackburn v. Gregsou 

iii. 278 

<j. Mackey 

i. 200 

v. St'holes 

ii. 614 

V. Smith 

ii. 680 

Blackburne v, Thompson 

ii. 360 

Blackett v. Royal Exch. Assur. Co. 

li. 361, 508, 547 

V. Weir 

i. 32 

Blackhurst v. Clinkard 

i. 205 

V. Cockell 

ii. 397, 401 

Blackman v. Green 

i. 94 

V. Leonard 

ii. 629 

Blackmore, ex parte 

iii. 460 

!■. Phill 

i. 419 

Blackstock v. N. Y. &E. R. R. Co. ii. 185 
Blai-kstone Bank v. Hill ii. 27, 634 

Blac.kwell v. Justices of Lawrence 

Co. iii. 226 

Blad V. Bamfield ii. 789 

Blades v. Free i. 353, 355, 362 

Blagden er parte iii. 483,515 

V. Bradbear iii. 11, 12, 14, 391 
Blagge V. N. Y. lus. Co. ii. 399 


Blagrare v. B. W. Co. ii. 7n3 

Blague V. Gold i. 500 

Blaine ti. The Charles Caiter ii. 281, 283 

Blaii- V. Bank of Tenn. i. 250, 272 

V. Bromley iii. 99, 345 

V. Drew iii. 72, 89 

V. Snodgrass iii. 6 

Blaisdoll i: Babcock ii. 442 

Blake v. Buchannan i. 227 

V. Cole i. 444 ; iii. 38 

V. Crowninshield ii. 664 

V. Dorgan i. 196 

V. Ferris i. 105, 106 

u. Howe i. 508 

V. Midland Railway Co. ii. 230 ; iii. 


V. Parlin ii. 7 

V. Peck i. 367 

V. Tucker ii. 790, 791 

Blakeley v. Blakeley i. 201 

V. Porter iii. 343 

Blakemore v. E. & B. B. R. Co. ii. 109, 235 

V. Glamorganshire Can. 

Nav. ii. 507 

Blakeney v. Dufaur i. 196 

Rlakes, ex parte iii. 452, 455 

V. Midland R. Co. ii. 444 

V. Williams ii. 587 ; iii. 454, 455, 


Blakesley v. Smallwood ii. 738 

Blakoy's Appeal iii. 425, 427 

Blanchard v. Brooks ii. 790 

V. Bucknam ii. 340 

V. Coolidge i. 161 

V. Dixon i. 406 

V. Ely iii. 182, 183, 185, 230 

V. Fearing ii. 280 

V. Hilliard ii. 538 

V. Isaacs ii. 177 

u. Lillcy ii. 697 

V. Noyes ii. 618 

V. Russell ii. 568, 587 ; iii. 430 

438, 439,441,443,446,455 

V. Stevens i. 259 

V. Stone ii. 728 

V. Waite ii. 350, 353, 419, 420 

V. Wood ii. 29 

Bland v. Collett ii. 626, 755 

V. Hasclrig iii. 62 

V. Nol;io Dowling i. 409, 410, 418 

Blandy «■ Herbert iii. 327 

Blaiie V. Prouillit i. 48 

Blaney v. Ilcndrick iii. 103, 104 

Blantin v. Wliitaker ii. 797 

Blanton v. Kno.x iii. .39 

Blattmaker v. Saul ii. 67 

Blasdale v. Babcock iii. 165, 213 

Blatchford v. Kirkp.atrick iii. 379 

Bleaden v. Hancock iii. 256 

Bleeker v. Hyde ii. 413 

Blenkinsop i\ Clayton iii. 41, .52 

Blennerhasset v. Monsell i. 341 

Bligh V. Brent 1. 334 ; iii. 34 
Blight V. Page i. 461 
V. Rochester ii. 798 
Blin U.Pierce i. 219, 227 
Blinu V. Chester ii. 619, 657 
Bliss c. Mclntire ii. 724 
V. Bobbins ii. 703 
V. Tliomson ii. 783 
Bliven v. N. E. Screw Co. ii. 547 
Block V. Bell ii. 5U9 
Blodget V. Jordan i. 613 
Blogg I'. Kent iii. 343 
Blood V. Enos ii. 40 
V. French i. 60 
ij. Goodrich i. 52, 111 
u. Howard Insurance Com- 
pany ii. 430 
V. Palmer i. 539 
V. Sliinc ii. 694 
Bloodgood V. Bruen iii. 69, 85 
Bloom V. Richards ii. 757, 760 
Bloomer v. Sherman ii. 700 
Blore r. Sutton iii. 10, 403 
Bloss V. Bloomer i. 456 
V. Kittridge i. 580 
Blot V. Boiceau i. 70, 98; iii. 190, 219 
Blount V. Hawkins ii. 10; iii. 25 
Blow V. Russell ii. 641 
Blowers ;;, Sturtevant i. 353, 354, 356 
Eloxam ;;. Hubbard iii. 469 
V. Sanders i. 526, 534, 598 
Ji]o\hi\m, ex paiie iii. 495, 512 
Bloxsorao V. Williams ii. 758, 764, 765 
BUick f. Gompertz iii. " 
Bluett V. U»borne i. .588 
Blundell v. Brettargh ii. 708 ; iii. 378, 405 
V. Gladstone ii. 558, 562 
V. Winsor i. 192 
Blunt V. Boyd i. 218, 221 ; iii. 26 
11. Melcher ii. 52 
Blydenburg v. Welsii i. 579 ; ii. 776, 781 ; 

iii. 207 

Blythe v. Bennett i- 515 

V. Waterworks ii. 87 

Boalt V. Brown ii. 717 

Boardman v. Gore i. 185; ii. 724 

u. Keeler i. 168; iii. 231 

V. Most>'n iii. 396 

«. Paige i. 34, 36 

V. Sill iii. 244, 269 

Bobo V. Hansel! i. 323 

Boddam r. Riley iii. 104 

Bodenham v. Bennett ii. 242, 244, 252 

V. Purchas ii. 19, 626, 633 

Bodger ;;. Arch iii. 74 

Bodine v. Glading iii. 377 

Bodle V. Chenango Co. Ins. Co. ii. 452, 


Bodley i'. Goodrich iii. 449 

V. Reynolds iii. 201 

Bodwell i\ ISwan iii. 169 

Boehm i: Sterling i. 261 


Boclini V. Wood 
Boehmo v. Carr 
Bogcrt V. Vermilya 
Boggs V. Curtin 
V. Martin 
V. Teakle 
Bohannon v. Pace 
Bohtliiigk V. Inglis 
Boinest v. Leignez 
Bolan V. Williamson 
Bold Bucclcugh 

V. Molineux 
Boldevo V. East India Compa- 
Bolin V. HuflFnagle 
BoUand v. Nash 
Bolton V. Colder 

V. Hillersden 

V. Lee 

V. Prentice 

„■. Puller 

t>. Eichards 

iii. 381, 383, 386 

i. 283 

iii. 82 

J. 26, 35 

iii. 2S4 

iii. 437, 450 

iii. 58 

i. 605 

i. 497 

ii. 145 

ii. 314 

ii. 510, 513 

ii. 547 

i. 605 

iii. 483, 514 

ii. 540 

i. 51 

i. 12 

i. 349, 352 

i. 252; iii. 484 

ii. 623 

V. The Bishop of Carlisle ii. 724 

Bomar v. Maxwell 
Bom'cisler v. Dobson 
Bonaparte, The 
Bonar v. Macdonald 

r. Mitchell 
Bonbonus, ex parte 
Bond V. The Cora 

V. Farnham 

V. Gibson 

V. Hays 

c;. Kent 

V. Nutt 

V. Pittard 

V. Seymour 

V. The Superb 
Bondies v. Sherwood 
Bonhara v. Badgley 
Bonner v. Liddell 

V. Wclborn 
Bonney v. Seeley 
Bonsey v. Amee 
Boody V. McKenny 
Bool V. Mix 
Boone v. Eyre 

V. Poindexter 
Bforman v. Brown 
V. Jenkins 
V. Nash 

Boot V. Wilson 
Booth I'. Gamett 
V. Hodgson 
V. Parks 
V. Smith 
V. Terrell 
V. Tyson 
Boraston v. Green 
Borden v. Borden 

iii. 460 

ii. 199, 254, 255 

ii. 493 

ii. 284, 285 

ii. 17 

i. 286 

i. 180 

ii. 286, 318,412 

i. 271, 279 

i. 182, 184 

i. 165 

iii. 278 

ii. 400 

i. 166 

iii. 449 

ii. 327 

ii. 322 

ii. 82, 596, 597 

ii. 690 

ii. 145 

i. 33 

ii. 259 

.i 322, 326, 327 

294, 322, 325, 333 

ii. 527, 531 

iii. 127 

iii. 219 

i. 585, 590 

iii. 206, 209, 473, 479, 

506, 509 

iii. 491, 492 

ii. 699 

i. 37 

i. 173 

ii. 625, 686, 688 

ii. 109, 127 

ii. 652, 658 

i. 510 

ii. 676 

Borden v. Fitch ii. 609 

V. Hingham Insurance 

Company ii. 455 

V. Houston ii. 15 

V. Sumner iii, 455 

Boreal «. The Golden Eose ii. 261 

Boroughes's Case ii, 515 

Borradaile v. Brunton iii. 181, 182 

Borradailc v. Hunter ii. 476 

Borrekins v. Bevan i. 582, 585, 592 

Borst V. Corey i. 370 

Borthwick v. Carruthers i. 293 

Bosanquet v. Dashwood iii. 127, 128 

V. Wray i. 165; ii. 631 

Bosler v. Kuhn 

Bosley v. Chesapeake Insurance 

Company ii. 391 

Boson V. Sandford ii. 171 

Boss V. Litton ii. 230 

Bostick V. Winton i. 574 

Boston, The ii. 284, 319, 322, 412 

Boston t'. Benson ii. 300, 719 

V. Brazier ii. 690 

Bank v. Chamberlin i. 326 

Manuf. Co. v. Fiske iii. 165, 173 

Water Power Co. v. Boston 

& Worcester E. E. Co. iii. 540 
Water Power Co. v. Gray ii. 701, 
& India E. F, v. Hoit ii. 609 

& Lowell B. E. Co. v. Salem 
& Lowell, B. & Me., & Low- 
ell & L. E. E. Cos. iii. 542 
& Maine E. E. Co. v. Bab- 
cock iii. 355, 411 
& Maine E. E. Co. v. Ba'rt- 

lett i. 480; iii. 411 

& Sandwich Glass Co. u. Bos- 
ton i. 466 
& Worcester E. R. Coi-p. v. 

Dana ii. 728 

V. Sparhawk ii. 801 

Bostwick V. Dodge i. 258 

V. Leach iii. 34 

Bosvil V. Brander iii. 482, 499 

Boswell V. Green i. 177 

V. Tunnell ii. 726 

Botiller v. Newport i. 333 

Bottsford V. Sandford iii. 120 

Bott V. McCoy i. 59 

Bottomley v. Bovill ii. 41 4 

V. Brooke ii. 744 

u, Forbes ii. 545 

Bottomly v. Nuttall i. 174 

Boucheli V. Clary i. 313 

Boucher v. Lawson ii. 171, 334, 570, 608, 

V. Vanbuskirk iii. 41 1 

Bouchaud v. Dias ii. 729 

Bouck V. Wilber iii. 378 

Boultbee v. Stubbs i. 286 

Boulter v. Peplow l. 32, 35 



Boulton V. Jones i. S21 

V. Welsh i. 283 

Bound r. Latlirop i. 187; iii. 81 

Bourcier v. Lanusse ii. 599 

Bourilillon r. Daltoii iii. 467, 490 

Bourko V. Lloyd ii. 694, 696 

Bourne, ex parte iii. 484 

V. Cabot iii. 495 

V. Digf^les i. 85 

V. Dodson iii. 471 

V. Frecth i. 145 

... GatlifF ii. 544 

V. Mason i. 466 

Bonssmakcr, ex parte iii. 508 

Bouton V. Am. Ins. Co. ii. 474, 487 

Bouttilier /•. Thick ii. 70.3 

Bovil V. Hammond i. 163 

Bowcher v. Noid Strom ii. 348 

BowdoU V. Parsons i. 532 ; ii. 666, 667, 


Bowden t'. Moore ii. 152 

V, Vaughan ii. 403 

Bowdre v. Hampton iii. 81 

Bowen v. Ashley iii. 299, 332 

V. Burke i. 526 

u. Hope Ins. Co. ii. 367 

V. Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 366 

V. Newell i. 276 

y. Stoddard ii. 54S, 546 

Bower V. Major i. 514 

V, Marris iii. 511 

V. Swadlin i. 186 

Bowerbank v. Monteiro i. 128; ii. 499 

Bowers, ex parte iii. 46(1 

V. Hurd ii. 66 

V. Jewell ii. 717, 721 

v. Johnson ii. 779, 780 

Bowes, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Howe i. 270, 278 

V. Tibbets ii. 46, 52 

Bowie V. Napier i. 93 

a. Stonestreet iii. 403 

Bowkcr V. Hoyt ii. 524, 652, 658 

Bowles /'. Round i. 497 

V. Woodson iii. 352, 383 

Bowling V. Hiirrison i. 272, 280 

Bowman r. Bailey i. 163 

1'. Hcning i. 530 

V. Hilton ii. 207 

V. Horsey ii. 536 

V. NicoU iii. 306 

V. Teall ii. 161, 201 ; iii. 194 

V. Woods ii. 54 

Bowne v. Joy ii. 608, 726 

Bowiicss, ifx parte iii, 511 

Bowser v. Bliss ii. 751 

Bowyer v. Bright i. 495 

Box 'of Bullion ii, 315 

Boyce v. Anderson i. 406; ii. 220, 223 

I'. Douglas ii. 725 

V. Edwards i. 267 ; ii. 580 

V. Ewiu-t ii. 22 

Boyd V. Anderson 
V. Bopst 
V. Brown 
V. Browne 
u. Cleavoland 
V. Cowan 
V. Croydon 
r. Dubois 
V. The Falcon 
V. Groves 
V. Hitchcock 
V. Mangles 
V. Plumb 
V. Siffkin 
V. Vanderkemp 

BoydcU V. Drunimond 

Boydon v. Boyden 
u. Moore 

Boyers v. Elliott 

Boyle, ex parte 

V. Brandon 
V. McLaughlin 
V. Zacharie 

Boynton i 

V. Hubbard 
7;. Kellogg 
K. Page 
V. Veazie 
Boys V. AnccU 
Boyson v. Coles 
Bozon ?'. Farlow 
Bracegirdle o. Heald 
Bra<'ev v. Carter 
Bracken v. Miller 
Bracket v. McNair 
Brackctt c. Blake 
V. BuUard 

1. 462 

i. 575 

iii. 175, 1*3 

ii. 775, 776 

i. 277 

iii. 220 

i. 137 

ii. 37b 

ii. 271 

ii. 797 

ii. 619 

iii. 483, 514 

i. 186 

i. 554, 555 

i. 75; iii. 510 

iii. 5, 37, 58 

i. 327, .3.30 

ii. 640 

i. 149 

iii. 515 

iii. 181 

ii. 185, 200 

iii. 438, 440, 441 

Clinton Ins. Co. ii. 355, 461 

Dyer i. 122,123; iii. 466 

ii. 784 

ii. 60, 66 

ii. 760 

iii. 44 

iii. 162 

i. 93 

iii. 368,411,418 

ii. 44 ; iii. 36, 38 

i. 116 

V. Evans 
V. Hoyt 

v. The Hercules 
u. Monntfort 
V. Norton 
Bradburne r. Botfield 

V. Bradburne 
Bradbury v. Wright 
Bradficld «. Tupper 
Bradford v. Bush 
V. Cary 
V, Corey 
V. Farrand 
V. Greenway 
V. Man ley 
V. Tappan 

Bradhurst !'. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 325,328,389 

Bradish v. Henderson ii. 106 

Bradleo v. Boston Glass Co. i. 55 

Bradley v. BoUes ii. 264 

V. Bradley ii. 485 

V. Cary ii. 4 

u. Chester Valley R. R. Co. iii. 421 

c^. Davis i. 284 

i. 75 

iii. 193 

i. 226 

i. 671 

iii. 35 

i. 459 

ii. 341 

ii. 721 

ii. 614 

i. 17,23 

i. 455 

i. 502 

iii. 77 

i. 60 

iii. 529 

i. 279 

iii. 441 

i. 369 

i. 585, 590 

i. 524 



Bradley v. Holdsworth i. 334 

V. Hunt i. 237 

V. Lowry ii. 579 

V. Munton iii. 382 

I'. Nashville Ins. Co. ii. 365 

V. Pratt i. 313 

0. Richardson i. 92 

K. Toder ii. 671 

V. Wash. A. & G. Steam 

Packet Co. ii. 549 

V, Waterhouse ii. 242 

V. White i. 161 

Bradlie v. Maryland Ins. Co. ii. 386, 394 

Bradsey v. Clyston ii. 690 

Bradshaw v. Bennett i. 494 

V. Heath ii. 605 

Bradstreet v. Baldwin ii. 295 

V. Ciark iii. 95 

V. Heron ii. 295 

V. Neptane Ins. Co. ii. 278, 588 

V. Supervisors of Oneida 

County i. 397 

Bradt v. Coon iii. 269 

V, Towsley iii. 177 

Brady v. Giles i. 107 

V. Haines i. 530 

«. Little Miami R. K. Co. i. 261 

V. Mayor ii. 115 

V. Todd i. 60 

Bragdon v. Appleton Ins. Co. ii. 420 

Bragg V. Anderson ii. 415 

V. Cole ii. 658 

V. Fessenden i. 1 11 

V. New England Ins. Co. ii. 452 

Brainard v. Buck iii. 66 

Braithwaite v. Coleman ii. 742 

V. Scofield i. 145 

V. Skinner i. 127 

Bramah v. Roberts i. 145, 257 

Bramhall i'. Beckett ,i- 259 

Branch v. Burnley ii. 614 

V. Ewington ii. 52 

Branch Bank v. Boykin i. 382 

V. James i. 243 

Brand v. Boulcott i. 20, 26, 35 

Brandao v. Bamett ii. 104 

Brandling v. Barrington iii. 287 

Brandon i). Brandon iii. 517 

V. Cushing ii. 360 

u. Hibbert ii. 626 

V. Hubbard i. 26 

o. Nesbitt ii. 360 

V. Newington ii- 645 

V. Old i. 384 

V. Pate iii. 469, 497 

I). Planters Bank i. 409, 412 

V. Robinson iii. 474, 493 

Brandram v. Wharton iii. 80 

Brandt v. Bowlby i. 290; ii. 292; iii. 193 

Branstoc, The ii- 318 

Brashear v. West iii- 426 

Brashior v. Gratz iii. 384, 408 

Brason ti. Dean 

ii. 674 

Brass v. Maitland 

ii. 297 

Bratlier v. McEvoy 

ii. 740 

Braugher v. Nelson 

iii. 376 

Brawdy v. Brawdy 

iii. 393 

Braxton v. Wood 

iii. 69 

Bray v. The Atlanta 

ii. 346 

v. Hadwen 

i. 282 

V. Kettell 

ii. 301 

!,•. Mayne 

ii. 121 

V. Wheeler 

i. 310 

Braynard v. Marshall ii. 587 ; iii. 440, 441, 

Braythwayth v. Hitchcock iii. 348 

Brazier v, Bryant ii. 629 

Brazill v. Isham ii. 689 

Brealey v. Andrew i. 444 

o. Collins i. 492 

Brcary ". Kemp ii. 701 

Breasted v. Farmers Loan & Tnist 

Co. ii. 477 

Brcck V. Cole ii. 554 

Breckenridge's Heirs v. Ormsby i. 295, 329 
Breckinridge!). Shrieve i. 181 

Brecknock Co. v. Pritchard i. 504 ; ii. 186, 


Bredin v. Dubarry i. 51 

Bree v. Sayler ii. 681 

Breed v. Eaton ii. 412 

V. Hillhouse i.271 

V. Hurd ii. 643 

V. Judd i. 313 

V. The Venus ii. 284, 333 

Brchm v. Great Western Ry. Co. ii. 224 

Breinig i'. Meitzler i. 353 

Bremner v. Williams ii. 227, 228 

Brenchley, car par^e iii 517 

Brciieman, ex parte iii. 447 

Brcnnan v. Currint iii. 246 

Brenner v. Herr ii. 685 

Brent V. Cook iii. 90 

V. Green i. 479; iii. 11 

Brenton i'. Davis i. 586 

Brereton v. Hull iii. 486 

Brett V. Brett ii. 601 

V. Cumberland iii. 492 

Brettel v. Williams iii. 17 

Bretton v. Prat ii. 698 

Breverton's Case i. 224 

Brewer v. B. & W. R. R. Co. ii. 801 

V. Dew iii. 172, 498 

V. Dyer i. 468; ii. 798 

V. Hardy ii. 504 

V. Linnieus ii. 578 

V. Palmer iii. 347 

1'. Sah.sbury i. 527, 528, 530 

V. Sparrow i. 52 

Brewerton v. Harris ii. 735 

Brewster !'. Baker i. 538; ii. 796 

V. Edgerly iii. 157, 162 

V. Hammctt i. 204, 205 

V, Hough iii. 544, 545 



Brewster v. Ritchin ii. 397, 674 

V. McCall's Devisees ii. 582 
V. Silence ii. 11, ^SS 

V. Wakefield iii. 105 

Breyfogle v, Beckley iii. 103 

Bricc V. Stokes i. 30 

Bricheno v. Thorp i. 115 

Briclua V. N. Y. Lafayette Ins. Com- 
pany ii. 432, 450, 480 
Brickliouse v. Hunter ii. 694 
Bridge v. Hubbard i. 458 ; iii. 117, 119, 122 
o. Niagara Ins. Co. i. 468 ; ii. 395 
V. Sumner ii. 733 
V. Tlie Grand Junction R. Co. 

ii. 233 

Bridge V. Wain iii. 182, 212 

Bridger v. Rice iii. 406 

Bridges v. Berry i. 269 

V. Hawkeswortli ii. 97 

V. Hitchcock i. 500 

V. Mitcliell iii. 89 

Bridgeman's Case i. 512 

Bridgeport Bank v. Dyer ii. 538, 544, 545 

Bridgewater Academy v. Gilbert i. 452 

Brien v. Williamson i. 418 

Brigg V. Washburne ii. 755 

Briggs V. A Light Boat ii. 263 

0. Earl of Oxford iii. 376 

V. Georgia i. 116 

V. Hall i. 509, 516 

V. Strange ii. 274 

V. Vanderbilt i. 158 

Brigham v. Henderson iii. 439 

V. Peters i. 49, 51 

Bright V. Boyd iii. 221 

V. Carpenter i. 243 

V. Cowper ii. 285 

V. McKnight ii. 14 

11. Paige ii. 305 

V. Rowland iii. 162 

V. Sneff iii. 252 

Brigstocke v. Smith iii. 66 

Brind y. Dale ii. 125, 157, 176 

Bringloe v. Morrice ii. 109 

Brinker v. Brinker iii. 388, 406 

Brinley v. Mann i. 140 

1/. National Ins. Co. ii. 454 

V. Spring ii. 275 

V. Whiting ii. 767 

Brisban v, Boyd i. 484 

Brisbane v. Stoughton iii. 421 

Brinsby v. Gold ii. 725 

Bristol V. R. & S. R. R. ii. 187 

V. Warner i. 250 

Bristow V. Eastman ii. 617 ; iii. 468 

V. Whitmore ii. 301, 334 

Bristowe v. Fairclough iii, 188 

V. Needham ii. 735 

British Empire, The ii. 322 

Linen Co. o. Drummond ii. 588, 


Brittan v. Barnaby ii. 293 

Britten v. Hnghes ii. 679 

Britton v. Bishop i. 256 

V. Turner ii. 38, 524, 740 

Brix V. Braham i. 381 

Brizsee v. Maybee iii. 172, 201, 203, 204 

Broad v. Jolyffo ii. 749, 752 

V. Thomas i. 99 

Broadwater v. Blot ii. 139 

Broadwell v. Getman iii. 39 

Brock V. Thompson iii. 116, 147 

Brockbank v. Anderson ii. 795 

Brockolbank v. Sugrue i. 48 ; iii. 32.'l 

Brockway t>. Bnrnap i, 160 

t!. Clark iii. 116, 117 

Broddie v. Johnson iii. 66 

Brodie v. Howard, ii. 268, 275 

0. St. Paul iii. 17, 59 

Breeder Trow, The ii. 171 

Broennenburgh v. Haycock i. 591 

Brogden v. Walker iii. 416 

Bromage v. Lloyd i. 250 

u. Prosser iii. 166 

Bromley v. Holland i. 69 

V. JeflFeries i. 41 1 

Bronson v. Wiman iii. 56 

Brook u. Brook ii. 598 

V. Rounthwaite iii. 400 

V. Smith ii. 608 

Brooke v. Bridges iii. 221 

V. Endcrby i. 168; ii. 6.33 

V. Evans i. 173, 177, 180 

V. Gaily i, 324 

V. Hewett iii. 474, 479, 493 

V. La. St. Ins. Co. ii. 388« 

V. MitclicU ii. 700 

<,. Pickwick ii. 242, 252, 255 

V. Washington i. 167 

Brooker v. Scott i. 297 

Brookes, ex parte iii. 520 

Brooklyn Bank v. De-Grauw ii. 681 

Brooks' «. Ball i. 444 

a. Hubbard iii. 216 

V. Marhury iii. 426 

V. Mitchell i. 260 

V. Minturn i. 55 ; ii. 295, 304 

V. Moody iii. 228 

V. Oriental Ins. Co. ii. 326, 370, 


V. Powers i. 630 

V. Stewart ii. 715 

V. Stuart i. 27 

V. Wheelock iii. 357, 392 

u. White ii. 619, 687 

Bronson v. Cahill iii. 3.M 

u. Gleason ii. 649 

u, Kinzie iii. 551, .i:''7 

V. Newberry iii. 550, 552 

V. Stround iii. 20 

I'. Winan iii 56 

Broom v. Batchelor ii. 504 

V. Broom i. 149 

u. Robinson iii. 492 



Broome, ex parte I. 203 

Jirooiiiley v. Goodere iii. 511 

liiolliers c. Hrothei's i. 87 

Biough V. Odiiy iii. 364 

V. VVliitmore ii. 361, 536 

Broughton v. Broujihton i. 86 

V. Conway ii. 502 

Brousseau v. Tlie Hudson ii. 296 

Brousoer v. Hill i. 454 

Evower v. Lewis i. 585 
Brown, ex parte iii. 460, 470, 506, 517 

in re i. 276 ; iii. 459 

V. Aclcioyd i. 362 

V. Adams i. 429 

». Aklen i. 341 

V. Allen 1. 28 

V. Arret iii. 192 

V. Bartee iii. 421, 426 

V. Batchelor ii. 21 

v. Bellows i. 524 

V. Bement i. 569 

V. Berry, ii. 647 

V. Bridges iii. 71 
V. Brown i. 235, 237, 344, 369 ; 
ii. 635 
V. Buffalo & S. L. E. R. Co. ii. 230 

V. Byrne ii. 536 

V. Chase i. 136 

ti. Clark, i. 204 

V. Collier i. 381 

V. Collins iii. 443 

0. Compton i. 405 

V. Crump i. 473, 504, 505 

V. Cuming iii. 469, 483 
V. Curtiss i. 243 ; ii. 6 ; iii. 2B 

V. Davies i. 254, 255, 257 

V. Delano ii. 305 

V. Denison ii. 141 

V. Dewey iii. 1 1 6 

V. De Winton 1. 246, 247 

V. Dickerson iii. 226 

t). Doyle i. 12 

V. Dudley ii. 727 

V. Durham i. 316 
V. Dysinger i. 507 ; ii: 639, 645 

V. Eastern R. E. Co. ii. 253 

V. Edes iii. 66 

V. Edgington i. 587 

I). Elkington i. 591 

V. Furguson i. 282, 284, 287 

V. Galloway iii. 220 

V. Gammon ii. 656 

V. Garland ii- 738 

V. Gihbins i. 173 

V. Gilman iii. 277 

V. Gilmore ii. 643 

V. Girard ii. 407 

V. Hankerson ii. 692 

;;. Hanison iii. 134, 135 

V. Hartford Ins. Co. ii. 371 

i;. Hatton ii. 493 

„. Heathcote iii. 468, 487 

Brown v. Howard iii. 92 

V. Hummell, iii. 532 

V. Hunt ii. 304 

V. Independence, The ii. 343 

V. Joddrell i. 384 

V. Johnson ii. 304, 606 

V. Kewley ii. 623 

V. Kimball ii, 659 

V. La«nb iii. 511 

a. Langford i. 456 

V. Lasselle i. 378 

V. Leavitt ii. 711 

V. Leeson ii. 756 

V. Leonard i. 167 

V. Litton i. 89, 202 
V. Lull i. 390 ; ii. 337, 3.!8 

V. Maine Bank i. 227 

<^. Marsh i. 28 
V. Maxwell i. 316 ; ii. 43, 230, 231 
V. McCune i. 317 ; ii. 799 

V. McCormack ii. 791 

V. McGrau i. 70, 94, 99 
V. Mott i. 257 ; iii. 495 

V. Mullins i. 135 

V. Neal ii. 638 

V. Neilson ii. 308, 376 

V. Nevitt iii. lOS 

V. Orland ii. 493 

V. Overton ii. 343, 413 

V. Patton i. 354, 356 

V, People's Ins. Co. ii. 352 

V. Quilter ii. 463 

V. Ralston ii. 295, 305 

V. Royal Ins. Co. ii. 454 

V. Saul ii. 622 

V. Savage ii. 690, 700 

u. Sax iii. 200, 201 

V. Sayles i. 587 

V, Simms i. 518 

V. Slater ii. 503 

V. Sloan i. 438 

u. Smith ii. 392 

V. Stapyleton ii. 331 
V. Tapscott i. 163 ; ii. 268 

V. Tayleur ii. 365, 411 

V. Tighe iii. 368 

V. Toell iii. 116 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 379, 399 

V. United States i. 398 

V. Vawser ii. 700 

V. Vigne ii. 366, 307 

V. Wade ii. 681 

V. Ward ii. 118 

V. Warnock ii. 690, 694 

V. Waters iii. 108, 120 

V. Watts iii. 300, 305 

V. Wilkinson ii. 334 

V. Williams ii. 432 

V. Witter ii. 680 

V. Wood iii. 475 

V. Wootton i. 12 

Appeal of i. 206 



Browne v. Lee 

i. .32, 35 

Buchanan v. Cnrry 

i. 191 

u. MevercU 

ii. 691 

V. Marshall 

i. 278 

V. Robinson 

ii. 743 

D. Ocean Ins. 


ii. 384 

V. Stackpole 

iii. 554 

V. Rucker 

ii. 609 

Browncll v. Flagler 


230, 231 

Buck V. Albee 

i. 456 

V. Hawkins ii 


118, 2S1 

V. Buck 

i. 100 

Browning v. Andrews 

i. 270 

V. Chesapeake Ins. 


ii. 403 

V. Bestoa 


508, 510 

V. Fisher 

iii. 103 

V. Hart 

iii. 448 

CI. Lane 

ii. 345 

V. Magill 

i. .520 

Buck V. McCaughtiy 

i. 496 

V. Morris 


127, 128 

V. Mosley 

i. 185 

u. Reane 

ii. 81 

; iii. 461 

V. Rawlinson 

ii. 337 

;;. Wright 


491, 502 


i. 149 

Broxham v. Wagstaffe 

ii. .34, 41, .508 

Buckbcc !•. U. S. Ins. Co 

ii. 486 

Bruce v. Brace i. 262 ; ii 


579, 686 

Bucker v. Klerkyeter 

ii. 345 

V. Hunter 

iii. 151 

Buckiugliam v. Burgess 

i. 174 

V. Learned 

iii. 202 

V. McLean 


136, 513 

V. Lytle 



V. Smith 

iii. 69 

V. Pearson 

i. 475 

Buckland v. Butterfield 

i. 512 

V. Pettengill 

iii. 219 

u. Conway 


689, 696 

It. Schuyler 

iii. 553 

V. Hall 


409, 498 

V. Wait 


261, 262 

Buckle V. Mitchell 

iii. 362 

Brace's Adra'rs v. Smith 

iii. 426 

Buckley, ex parte 

i. 122 

Bruen v. Marqnand 

I. 22, 186 

V. Artcher 

ii. 773 

Brumby v. Smith 

ii. 131 

v. Barber 



Brummel v. Stockton 

i. 531 

V. Buckley 


149, 151 

Bramiige v. Poor 

iii. 355 

V. Cater 

i. 203 

Brundred v. Muzzy 

i. 155 

V. Furniss 

i. 601, 

605, 609 

Brundrett, ex parte 

iii. 460 

V. Guildbaiik 

ii. 513 

; iii. 128 

Brundi-idge v. Whitecomb 

ii. 739 

Bucklin v. Thompson 

i. 570 

Brush V. Keeler 

ii, 757 

V. Ward 

i. 226 

V. Scribner 

i. 258 

Buckman v. Levi 

i. 5.33; ii. 180 

Brutt V. Picard 

iii. 307 

Buckmaster v. Harrop 

iii. 11 

, 60, 393 

Brutton v. Burton 

i. 110 

V. Smyth 

i. 533 

Bryan v. Bradley 

ii. 504 

Buckmyr v. Darnell 

ii. 4 

V. Horseman 

ii. 62, 64 

Bucknam u. Barnum 


156, 175 

V. Jackson 

i. 302 

I). Goddard 

i. 575 

V. Lewis 

i. 523 

Buckner v. Finley 

i. 287 

u. Robert 

iii. 374 

V. Smyth 

i. 344 

V. Weatherhead 

i. 499 

Budd V. Busti 

iii. 280 

Bryant, ex parte 

iii. 516 

CI. Fairmaner 

i. 580 

V. Christie 

iii. 524 

Buel V. Gordon 

iii. .507 

V. Commonwealth Ins. Co. ii. 298, 

384, 545 

V. Craig i. 122 

V. Eastman i. 242 

V. Flight ii. 55 

u. Goodnow i. 444, 4.53 

V. Hambrick iii. 22i, 231 

V. Jackson i. 384 

V. Kelton i. 530 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 403 

u. Poughkeepsie Ins. Co. ii. 424 

V. Proctor ii. 681 

V. Young iii. 449 

Bryce v. Brooks i. 98 

Bryden v. Taylor 1, 286 

Bryer v. Weston i. 176 

Brymer v. Atkins iii. 468 

Bryson v. Browning i. 235 

V. Whitehead ii. 750; iii. 368, 418 

Buchou V. Sumner i. 149, 152 

Bufe V. Turner ii. 435, 436, 777 

BuB'alo Steam Engine Works v. 

Sun Ins. Co. ii. 355, 452 

Buffam V. Merry ii. 134 

Buffington v. Curtis i. 290 ; ii. 291 

V. Quantin i. 592 

Buffum V. Fayette Ins. Co. ii. 420 

V. Green iii. 425, 426 

BufFord I'. Caldwell ii. 775, 786 

V. McNoely i. 197 

Bulger V, Roche ii. 591 

Bulkley v. Barber ii. 266 

V. Dayton i. 22 

V. Derby Fishing Co. i. 141 ; 

ii. 401 

V. Honold ii. 273 

Bull ?;. Parker ii. 645 

V. Robison i. 533, 587 

BuUard v. Roger Williams Ins. Co. ii. 385, 

390, 408 



Bullnvd !'. Young ii. 198 

Bullen V. Denning ii. 172, 508 

BiiUcr V. Harrison i. "9 

Bullet V. Bank of Penn. i. 292 

Bullitt V. Musgrave ii. 706 

Bullock V. Babcock i. 316 

V. Boyd iii. 134, 149 

V. Campbell iii. 91 

V. Dommitt i. 504 ; ii. 672 

V. Lamar, The ii. 311 

I/. Smith iii. 70 

I/. Wilson iii. 220 

Bulvver v. Home ii. 638 

Bumgardner v. Circuit Ct. iii. 552 

Bunker v. Athearn i. 248 

V. Miles i. 87 

Bunn V. Guy i. 431 ; ii. 749 

V. Ricker ii. 628, 755, 756 

V. Thomas ii. 513 

V. Winthrop i. 337 ; iii. 360, 363 

Bunney v. Payntz i. 498, 601 ; iii. 247, 2."i7 

Burbank v. Beach i. 281 

v. Rockingham Ins. Co. ii. 236, 

452, 482 

Burbridge v. Manners i. 280 

Burch V. Breckinridge ' i. 368 

Burchard v. Tapscott ii. 273 

Burchell v. Marsh ii. 703 

Burchfield v. Moore ii. 718 

Burcklo 1-. Eekart i. 160 

Burd «. Smith iii. 426, 428 

Burden v. Ferrers i 12 

V. M'Ellionny iii. 62 

Burdett V. Willett iii. 482 

u. Withers i. 504 ; iii. 233 

Burdick v. Green ii. 625 

II. Post iii. 449 

Burgan v. Lyell i. 170 

Burgess, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Atkins i. 207 

i;. Clements ii. 147, 148, 149 

V. Gray i. 106 

V. Gun ii. 287 

V. Tucker ii. 737 

V. Vreeland i. 280 

V. Wheate iii. 278, 357, 358 

Burghart v. Angerstein i. 296, 297, 314 

^.Gardner i. 113, 115 

■v. Hall i. 296 

Burgoyne v. Showier ii. 723 

Burhain v. Webster i. 255 

Burlc V. Baxter i- 513 

!.. McClain iii. 4.55, 481 

Burke v. Cruger ii. 26 

y. Haley iii. 11, 13 

V. McKay i. 286 

V. Negro Joe i. 402 

V. Winkle i._366 

Burks 0. Shain ii. "0 

Burleigh v. Stott iii. 80, 82, 83 

Burley !>. Russell ..j- '^'^ 

Burlingarae v. Burlingame i. 310; iii. 231 



i. 278, 




iii. 76 



L. 52 





. 35 

i. 48, 145, 








i. 255, 




Burlinghnme i'. Bobbins 
Burmcster v. Barrow 
Burham v. Gentry 
Burn !!. Boulton 
V. Miller 
V. Morris 
Burnaby's Case 
Buniby v. BoUett 
Burnell i\ Minot 
Burness v. Pennell 
Burnet i". Bisco 
Burnett v. Scribner 
Buruhara v. Allen 
V. Tucker 
V. Wood 

Burns i'. Fletcher i. 588 

1). Thornburgh ii. 735 

Burnsidc v. Merrick i. 151, 152; iii. 469, 


Buron v. Denraan i. 53, 514 

Burr V. Foster ii. 403 

V. Sim ii. 485 

Burritt «. Saratoga Co. Ins. Co. ii. 402, 

422, 4.!0 

Burridge v, Fortescue iii. 157 

u. Row ii. 4^2 

Burrall v. Acker i. 208 

V. Jacob i. 528 

V. Rice iii. 441 

Burrell i'. Jones i. 117; ii. 30 

0. North ii. 181 

Burrough v. Moss i. 256 ; ii. 738 

Bui-roughes v. Clarke ii. 55 

Burroughs v. Hanegan ' i. 271 

V. Richmond i. 384 

Burrows r. Jcmino ii. 570, 606 

I/. Pierce iii. 221, 226 

Burson v. Edwards iii. 169 

V. Kincaid i. 187 

Burt V. Sternburgh ii. 729 

Burton, ex parte i. 381 

V. Blin ii. 545 

V. Chinn ii. 738 

V. Great Northern Ry. Co. i. 449 

i: Griffiths i. 125 

v. Hughes ii. 95 

u. Issit i. 187 

I). Lockhert iii. 473, 496 

V. Philadelphia, &o. Railroad 

i. 138 

0. Schermerhom i. 465 

0. Stewart ii. 780 

V. Wilkinson ii. 142 

Burton's Case iii. 108, 116, 140 

Burwell v. Mandeville's Ex'r i. 198, 201 

Bury V. Philpot i. 337 

Busard v. Levering i. 276, 280, 283 

Brcsby v. Chenault i. 202- 

Bush, ex parte iii. 270 

I: Barnard i. 382 

V. Canfield iii. 206 

V. Davies i. ■'>26 



Bush V. Lnthrop 


227, 229 

v. Livingstoa 


116, 118 

V. Marshall 

ii. 791 

V. Miller 

ii. 126 

V. I'etdbone 

i. 384 

V. Shipman 

iii. 529 

u, Steinman 

i. 108 

V. Stevens 

iii. 28 

Bushee v. Allen 

iii. 21 

Bushell V. Beavan 

iii. 22 

V. Wheeler 

iii. 48 

Busk I'. Davis 

i. 528 

V. Royal Exch. Ass. 


ii. 407 

Buskirk i'. I'lirin 

iii. 253 

Bnson v. Dougherty 

i. 538 

Buss V. Gilbert 


516, 524 

Bussfielil V. Bussfieia 

ii. 699 

Bustai'd's Case 

iii. 227 

Butcher v. Dresser 

i. 201 

V. Easto 

iii. 484 

V. i'orman 

iii. 507 

i;. London and So 


Ry. Co. 


175, 190 

V. Steu'art 

ii. 563 ; iii. 23 

Butcher's Bank v. Brown 

i. 241 

Butler, ex jiitrle 

iii. 468 

V. jVrrow, The 

ii. 290 

V. Basing 

ii. 181 

V. Breck 


297, 344 

V. Buckingham 

i. 366 

V. Carver 

iii. 479 

V. Chariton County Court iii. ."ias 

V. Ciaig 


402, 404 

V, Hcane 

ii. 252 

V. Hicks 


196, 374 

V. Hiklreth 

iii. 485 

V. Howe 

iii. 95 

V. Inncys 

ii. 736 

V. Lee 


759, 764 

V. Palmer 

iii. 533 

V. Pennsylvania 

iii. 530 

V, Powis 


35.5, 395 

o. Rhodes 

iii. 523 

V. Stocking 

i. 185 

V. Tufts 

i. 575 

V. ff igge 

i. 457 

V. Wildnian 

ii. 376 

V. Winters 

iii. 66 

Butman v. Monmouth Ins 


ii. 449 

Butnam v. Abbot 

ii. 55 

Butt V. Great Western R. 


ii. 125 

Buttcrfield v. Forrester 

ii. 232 

V. Hartsliorn 


219, 221 

I'. Jacobs 

ii. 66, 70 

0. Kidder 

iii. 113 

Bnttei-field, ex parte 

iii. 515 

Butterworth v. McKinley 

i. 528 

Button V. Downliam 

iii. 140 

Buttrick >:. Holden 

iii. 358 

Butts V. Cuthbertson 


V. Dean 

ii. 624 

Buxton, ex parte 

iii. 465 

Buxton I/. Boughac 
V. Jones 
V. Lister iii. 366, 

Buzzell V. Laconia Man. Co. 

Byars v. Doores 

Byers ;•. Dobcy 
V. Fowler 
V. McClanahan 
V. Van Deusen 

Byrne u. Doughty 

Bynum v. Bostick 

Byram v. Hunter 

Byrd v. Boyd 
V. Fox 
V. Odeni 

Byrne v, Crowninshield 

V. Fitzhugh 

1'. La. State Ins. Co. 
Byrnes v. National Ins. Co. 
Byrom v. Thompson 
Bywater v. Richardson 

ill. 268 

i. 71, 274 

369, 373, 374 

ii. 42 

i. 65 

i. 11 

iii. 513 

i. 37, 111 

ii. 691 

i. 46 

i. 399, 409 

i. 226 

ii. 34, 35 

i. 164 

ii. 766 

ii. 591 ; iii. 

95, 97 

i. 13, 20, 22 

i. 412 

ii. 395 

iii. 306 

i. 589 


Caharga v. Seej^ 
Cabell V. Vaughan 
Cabellaro v. Slater 
Cable V. Dakin 
V. Rogers 
Cabot V. Haskins 
V. Winsor 
Cadraan v. Horner 

0. Lubbock 
Cadmus, The 

V. Mattlievvs 
Cadogan v. Kennett 
Cadwallader v. Howell 
Caily V. Shepherd 
Cage V. Acton 

V. Wilkinson 
Cahill c. Bigelow 
Cailiff r. Danvers 
Cain V. Spann 
("aine V. Horsefall 
Caincs V. Smith 
Cairnes v. Blecker 
Calbreath v. Gracy 
Calcraft v. Harborough 
Caldccott V. Smith 
Calder v. Bull 

V. Rutlierford 
Caldwell v. Bartlett 

V. Cassidy 

V. Carrington's Heira 

V. Dawson 

V. Drake 

V. Murphy 

V. ilycrs 

V. St. Louis Ins. Co 

V. Shepherd 

ii. 556 

i. 12 

i. 450 

iii. 204 

ii. 699, 700 

i. 437, 468; iii. 8 

i. 541, 547 

i. 492; iii. 414 

ii. 641 

ii. 347 

ii. C46, 347 

i. 529 

ii. 579, 580 

i. 110 

ii. 716 

iii. 269 

ii. 10 ; iii. 58 

ii. 139 

i. 255, 2.56 

ii. 501 

ii. 65, 675 

i. 52 ; ii. 690 

ii. 399 

iii. 178 

i. 510 

iii. 552 

i. 30' 

i. 521; iii 274 

i. 272 

iii. 392 

iii. 331 

i. 364 


iii. .'■J74 

ii. 376 

i. 115 



Caldwell v. Wcntworth ii. 630 

V. West iii. 203 

Calhoun v. Rklmnlson ii. 794 

V. Vechio i. 579 

Caliot V. Walker iii. 131, 134, 151 

C.ilisto, The ii. 263, 264 

Calkins !>. Lockwood iii. 44 

Call i\ Calcf ii. 766 

V. Hagger iii 557 

V. Scott iii. 116 

I'. "Ward i. 304 

Callaghan v. Atlantic Ins. Co. ii. 401 

V. Callaghan iii. 359, 361 

V. Hallett i. 437; ii. 318 

Callahan v. McAlexander ii. 693 

Callen v. Thompson i. 530 

Callender v. Ins. Co. ii. 299 

Callo V. Brouncker ii. 35 

Callow V. Lawrence i. 261 ; iii. 297, 309 

Calt V. Partridge ii. 728 

Calton !.'. Bragg iii. 104 

Calvert v. Carter ii. 692 

V. Gordon ii. 31 

V. Hamilton Ins. Co. ii. 428, 434 

V. Roberts iii. 308 

Calvin's Case i. 397 

Calye's Case ii. 147, 149, 155 

Cambioso v. Maffett ii. 753 

Cambridge, The ii. 346 

V. Anderton Ii. 384, 385 

Ins. for Savings v. LifJe- 

field i. 382 ; ii. 794, 795 

Camden & Amboy Railroad Co. v. 

Belknap ii. 179 

V. B.aldauf ii. 237, 240, 248, 253 

V. Burke ii. 220 

Cameron v. Buker i. 312 

V. Boyle iii. 166 

V. Montgomery iii. 426 

V. Scudder iii. 426 

V. Wynch iii. 201 

Camfranque v. Burnell iii. 436 

Camidge v. Allcnby i. 262 ; iii. 247 

Cammack v. Johnson i. 206, 208 

Cammer v Harrison i. 276 

Camoys v. Scurr ii. 109 

Camp V. Bates iii 151 

V. Camp i. 572 

y. Grant i. 202, 212 

V. Pulver ii. 770 

V. Scott i. 261 

V. Stevens ii. 38 

V. Western Union Tel. Co. ii. 251, 


Campanari v. Woodburn _ i. 7 1 

Campbell ex parte iii. 517 

u. Baldwin i. 378 

u. Butler i. 243 

V. Butts ii. 728 

V. Campbell i. 415 

V. Christio iii. 323 

V. Colhoun i. 148 

Campbell i'. Fleming 
V. Gittings 
V. Hall 
V. Hamilton 
V. Hicks 
V. Innes 
V. Jones 
!-■. Knapp 
V. Leach 
V. Lewis 
V. Mesier 
V. Morse 
V. Perkins 
V. Read 
V. Shields 
V. Stakes 
V, Walker 

Cambioso v. Matfett 

Can ;;. Read 

Canaan v. Hartlev 

ii. 782 

ii. .532 

i. 67 

ii. 739, 745 

i. 42, 57 

ii. 405 

ii. 529, 531 

i. 279; ii. 7 

i. 81 

i. 231, 233 

i. ,12 

ii. 161 

iii. 510 

iii. 1 1 8 

iii. 116 

i. 317 

iii. 465 

ii. 259 

iii. 468 

iii. 491 

ii. 616 

Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany i. 262, 264, 

V. Cox iii. 426 

Canal Fund v. Perry i. 453 

Candler v. Fuller ii. 698 

Candor's Appeal ii. 47 

Candy, er parte iii. 463, 464 

Cane v. Com. Ins. Co. ii. 455 

Canfield v. Hard i. 198 

D. Vaughan ii 3 

Canham v. Barrv ii. 771 


Cannan v. Denew 
V. Meaburn 

The Santissima Trin- 

ii. 284 

iii. 460 

ii. 276, 334 

Cannel v. Buckle ii. 71 6 ; iii. 353, 355, 356 
CanncU v. M'Clcan iii. 231 

Cannon v. Alsbury i. 330, 452 

V. Mitchell i. 494 

Canover u. Cooper i. 310 

Canter v. Amer. & Ocean Ins. Co. iii. 1 1)5 
Cantrel v. Graham iii. 492 

Cany v. Patton i. 354 

Cape Fear Bank v. Stinemetz i. 287 

Cape Fear Steamboat Co. v. Conner ii. 256 
Capel V. Thornton i. 496 ; ii. 614 

Capen v. Alden ii. 6.33 

V. Barrows i. 26, 164 

V. Glover iii. 545 

V. Washington Ins. Co. ii. 409, 110 
Capper v. Dando iii. t61 

V. Spottiswoode iii. 278 

Capron v. Johnson iii. 441 

Carbonel w. Davies ii. 513 

Garden v. General Cemetery Co. i. 146 
Cardigan ;;. Armitage ii. 508 

Careless v. Careless ii. 558, 562 

Carew v. Northrup ii. 742 

Carey v. Berkshire R. R. Co. i.312; ii. 230 
Cargey o. Aitcheson ii. 694 

Cariss V. Tattersall ii. 723 ; iii. 305 

Carle v. Hail i. 108 



Carleton !■. Leigliton i. 523; iii. 472, 475 
0. Woods ii. 518 

Carley v. Viuice i. 272, 273 ; ii. 639 

t.. Will<ins i. 581,584 

Cai-lis V. McLaugliliu iii. 1U7 

Omi-UsIc !'. Fleming iii. 406 

Carl Johan, The ii. 334 

Carlton v. Bailey i. 261, 456 

Carmichael r. Hughes i. 308 

Carne v. Brieo iii. 499 

Caraegie v. Morrison i. 267, 467, 408 ; iii. 

Carnes v. Field ii. 800 

Carnoehan v. Chriptie ii. 696 

V. Gould i. 584 

Carolan v. Brabazoa iii. 418 

Carolina, The ii. 398 

Carolus, The ii. 349 

Carpenter v. American Ins. Co. i. 74 ; ii. 

404, 434 
V. Buller iii. 296 

V. Butterficld ii. 734, 742 

V. Dodge i. 235, 432 

V. Lockhart iii. 162 

V. Marnell iii. 479 

u. Mutual Ins. Co. ii. 420 ; iii. 
374, 375 
V. Oaks i. 243 

V. Providence Ins. Co. ii. 372, 
439, 441, 450, 452 
V. Schermerhorn ii. 791 

V. Stcvrns iii. 203 

V. Stilwell ii. 797 

V. Thompson i. 508; ii. 787 
0. Washington Ins. Co. ii. 437 
Carprew v. Canaran ii. 742 

Carpue v. L. & B. Railway Co. ii. 224, 228 
Cart, ex parte iii. 471 

V. Burdiss iii. 485 

V. Clough i. 294, 320, 321 

u. Ellison i. 500; iii. 368 

V. Gale iii. 473 

V. Ilinchliff ii. 743, 744 

V. Jackson i. 65, 68 

V. King i. .se.) 

V. Robetts i. 130; iii. 336 

V. The L. & Y. Railway Com- 
pany ii. 237. 245, 248 
Carradinc !•. Collins i. 235 
Carrier v. Brannan ii. 756 
Carrington, ex parte iii. 4i'i2 
V. Brents iii. 283 
f. Cantillon i. 188 
V. Planning iii. 69 
V. Pratt ii. 283 
V. Roots iii. 34, 57 
Carrol v. Blencow i. 366 
Carroll v. Boston Ins. Co. ii. 450, 452 
;;. New York & N. H. R. R. 

Co. ii. 233 

V. Upton i. 281 

V. Weld i. 243, 245 

Carrutli v. Paige iii. 66 

V. Walker i. 248 

Carruthers v. Shcddon ii. 558 

V. Sydebotham ii. 349 

K. West i. 256, 257 , iii. 495 

Carshorc v. Huych iii. 85 

Carsley v. White ii. 311 

Carson v. BailUe i. 283 

V. Blazer i. 510 

Carstair« v. Stein iii. HO, 135, 508 

Carter v. Abbott iii. 4G9 

V. Boehm ii. 360, 404, 472 

V. Bradley i. 284 

v. Burley i. 280, 287 

u. Btirris i. 569 

V. Carter i, 359 

V. Champion iii. 513 

V. Crick i. 580, 586 

I. Dean iii. 460 

u. Flower 1. 271 

u. Hamilton ii. 548, 549 

V. Kungstead ii. 513, 514 

V. Rockett ii. 441 

V. Rollard i. 3U8 

V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. ii. 413 

u. Smith i. 272 

!i. Southall i. 187 

V. Startute ii. 697 

V. Stennel i. 592 

V. Talcott ii. 614 

v. Toussaint iii. 41 

'■. United Ins. Co. i. 224 

V. Walker i. 593 ; ii. 780 

i'. Whalley i. US 

V. Willard iii. 488 

('. Worinald ii. 683 

Carteret «. Paschal i. 342 

Carthrae i). Brown i. vg 

Cartland v. Morrison i. 526 

Cartwell v. The John Tyler ii. 340 

Cartwright v. Cooke i. 448 ; ii. 683 

V. Rowley ii. 174 

Carvnlho v. Burn iii. 479 

Carver v. Jackson ii. 789 

Carville v. Crane ii. U ; iji. 23 

Carwick v. Vickery i. 189 

Gary r. Bancroft ii. 746 

u. Crisp iii. 478 

u. Curtis i. 79 

V. Gruman i. 592, 593; iii. 211 

V. Hotailing ii. 773 

V. Matthews i. 138 

Caryl c. Rnssell i|i. .r,23 

Casamajor v. Strode i. 495 

Casborne v. Duttou i. 248 

Casco, The Brig ii. leo 

Case v. Barber ji. 681 

V. Boughton i. 428 

V. Ferris ij. (194 

V. Green ji. b.'j.s 

V. Hart i. 1C3 

11. Hartford Ins Co. ii. 445, 447 



Case V. Mecliaiiics Banking Associa- 
tion i. 242 
V. "Winsliip i, STl 
Cnsell, In re, ii. 707 
Casey v. Brusli i. lli+ 
V. Harrison ii. 725 
V. Inlocs ii. 796 
Casli V. Gilles i. r)94 
V. Young , iii. 5i)2 
Cason y. Clieely iii. 54, 55 
Ciisscdy V. La. "St. Ins. Co. ii. 390 
Ca.ssel V. Dowcs i. 267 
Ciissiday ". JNlcKenzie i. 71, 72 
C:istalia, Tlie ii, .346 
Casteel v. Castcel i. 378 
Ciistelli V. BoiMington ii. 740 
Castello ('. Banlc of Albany ii. 120 
Castle V. Sworder iii. 246 
Castledon v. Tnrnor ii. 563 
Castleman v. Holmes ii. 17, 18 
Castling V. Aubcrt iii. 26, 27 
Caswell V. Coare i. 592 ; iii. 212 
0. Districh i. 103 
V. Wendell iii. 224 
Cathcart i'. Potterfield iii. 513 
V. Robinson iii. 415 
Catherine, TIio ii. 276 
of Dover, The ii. 309 
V. Diclvinson ii. 309 
Catin V. D'Orgenoy i. 419, 420 
Catlett V. Pacific Ins. Co. ii. 392, 399, 


Catley y. Wintringham ii. 191 

Catlin V. Barnard i. 25 

V. Bell i. 81, 83, 99; ii. 753 

V. Hansen i. 290 

V. Springfield Ins. Co. ii. 425, 431, 

449, 461 

u. "Ware i. 365 ; iii. 223 

Catling V. Skoulding iii. 62, 71, 73, 90 

Caton 0. Eumney ii. 170 

V. Shaw ii. 11 ; iii. 109 

Catron v. Tenn. Ins. Co. ii. 437 

Catskill Bank v. Gray i. 157 

I'. IMessenger i. 187 

Catt V. Howard ' i. 189; iii. 348 

Cattlin V. Hills ii. 233 

Caudell v. Shaw i. 366 

Caujolle V. Perrie i. 337 

Caul V. Gibson i. 455 

Caunt w. Ward iii. 499 

Causten v. Burke i. 164 

Cave V. Coleman i. 581 

Cavendish v. ii. 695 

Cavode v. McKeIvy i. 439 

Cawkwell, ex parte iii. 457 

Cawley v. Fumell iii. 66 

Cayme v. Watts ii. 694 

Cayuga Bank v. Hunt i. 266 ; iii. 136 

Cayuga County Bank v. Warden i. 283 
Gaze '». Baltimore Ins. Co. ii. 294, 299 
V. Keilly ii. 325 

Cazc V. niclmrds ii. 325 

Cazenove u. British Ass. Co. ii. 466 

Cease, In the matter uf iii. 459 

Cecil V. Mix i. 243 

V. Plaistow iii. 523 

Celt, The ii. 308 

Center v. American Ins. Co. ii. 38-1, 386, 

387, 394 

Central Bank ;■. Allen i. 271, 276 

V. Lang i. 247 

Centurion, The ii. 318 

Chacc V. Brooks ii. 26 

Chadbourn «. Watts iii. 117, 121, 125 

Chadwick „. The Dublin S. P. Co. 

ii. 312 

V. IVTadon i. 04 

Chaffee v. Jones i. 32, 35, 36 

Ciialmers v. Lanior i. 253, 255 

Chamberlain v. Bagley iii. 157 

V. Carlisle ii. 728 

V. Chandler ii. 227 

V. Cuvler iii. 73 

V. Fan- i. 530 

V. Ilarrod ii. 354 

V. Mill. & Miss. R. R. Co. 

ii. 43 

V. Reed ii. 332 

V. Ward ii. 311 

V. Williamson, i. 130 ; ii. 70 

Chambcrlaine v. Turner ii. 550 

Chaniberlin v. Griirgs iii. 523 

V. Shaw iii. 196 

Chambers v. Crawford i. 587 

II. Goldwin iii. 151 

c. Griffiths i. 495 

ii. Jaynes ii. 659 

c. Miisterson ii. 153 

V. Minchin i. 30 

f. Snooks iii. 90 

I.. Robinson iii. 175 

V. Winn ii. 049 

Champant i: Ranelagh ii. 586 

Chi\m\)\on, ex fiin-te iii. .oil 

v. Bostiek i. 162; ii. 229 

V. Brown iii. 354, 358 

V. Plummer iii. 13 

V. Short ii. 658 

i'. White ii. 533 

Champion, The, v. Jantzen ii. 272 

Champlin v. Butler ii- 280 

V. Laytin iii. 399 

V. Parish iii. 10 

,.-. Rowley ii. 524, 659 

Chancellor v. Poole iii. 492 

V. Wiggins i. .)75 

Chandelor v. Lopus i. 580 

ChancHer v. Bclden i. 289 ; ii. 293 

V. Drew i. 256 

c. Brainard i. 189 

V. Fulton i. 596, 59S 

V. Herrick ii. 713 

V. Sprague ii- 292 



Chandler v. Worcester Ins. Co. ii. 374, 


Chandos v. Talbot iii. 482 

Channel z). Fassitt i. 15S 

Clmnnell v. Ditchburn iii. 80, 83 

Chanoine v. Fowler i. 284 

Chanter v. Diekinson iii. 341 

V. Hopkins i. 5B1, 588 

17. Lecse i. 19, 23 

Chapel V. Bull iii. 229 

V, Illckcs i. 464; ii. 524 

(Ihapin v. Clcmitson ii. 502 

V. Laphain i. 444 

V. Merrill iii. 22 

V. Warden iii. 69 

Chaplin v. Clark iii. 295 

V. Hawes ii. 232 

V. Rogers iii. 41, 42 

Chapline y. Moore i. 344 

Chapman v. Black iii. 118, 119 

V. Chapman iii. 280 

V. Collins ii. 5 

V. Crane ii. 52 

('. Derby iii. 483 

V. Dalton ii. 506, 568, 673 

u. Forsyth iii. 459 

V. Kcarie i. 284 

V, Koops iii. 281 

V. Lamphire iii. 460 

V. Lemon i. 367 

u. Mnrch i. 581 

u. Partridge iii. 12, 13 

V. Robertson ii. 584, 585 ; iii. 


V. Searle i. 601 ; iii. 248 

V. Secomb ii. 501 

V. Speller i. 574 

V. Sutton ii. 23; iii. 16 

V. Thames Manuf. Co. iii. 218 

V. Walton i. 84 

Chappel V. Brockway ii. 751 

V. Marvin i. 581 ; iii. 43 

Chappie V. Cooper i. 297 

V. Durston ii. 742; iii. 100 

Chard v. Fox i. 284 

Charles, ex parte iii. 524 

V. Andrews iii. 277 

V. Branlcer ii, 638 

V. Marsden i. 257 ; iii. 495 

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 

ii. 506 ; iii. 552 
Charleston S. B. Co. v. Bason ii. 162 

Charlestown v. Hubbard i. 470 

Cliarleton c. Coteswortli ii. 333 

Charlotte, The ii. 315 

Ciiarlton v. Lay i. 462 

Charnley v. Winstanley i. 72; ii. 711 

Cliarter i\ Trevelyau i. 87 ; iii. 99 

Charters ?;. Bayntua i. 297 

Chase i>. Bradiej ii. 501 

V. Debolt i. 65 

V. Dwinal i. 395 

Chase v. Eagle Ins. Co. ii. 406, 408, 409, 

II. Garvin i. 104, 165 

V. Goble iii. 485 

V. Hamilton Ins. Co ii. 434 

u. Stevens i. 162 

V. Strain ii. 745 

V. Washburn ii. 134 

V. Wash Ins. Co. ii. 363, 405, 443 
V. Westmore ii. 139; iii. 246, 250 
Chase's E.^'r c. Burklioldcr i. 457 

V. Washington Ins. Co. 

ii. 158 

Chastain !'. Bowman i. 40G 

Chater v. Beckett i. 455; iii. 17, 18 

Chattock V. Sliawo ii. 471 

Chatzel V. Bolton ii. 726 

Cliauneey v. Jackson ii. 271 

Chaurand v. Augerstein ii. 536 

Clieddick v. Marsh iii. 158, 162 

Cliedwortli v. Edwards i. 88, 89 

Cheek i-. Roper i. 266 

Cheesman v. Exeell ii. 142 

1-. Raraby ii. 749 

Cheetham v. Hampson ii. 127 

V. Ward ii. 7 1 5 

Cheminant v. Thornton ii. 645 

Cheney, In re. iii. 468, 472 

0. Arnold ii. 79 

V. B. & M. R. R. Co. ii. 253 

Chenot V. Lefevre iii. 98 

Chenowitli e. Dickinson ii. 139 

Cheriot I'. Foussat ii. 611 

Clierry v. Boultbce iii. 474, 515 

V. Clements i. 368 

V. Heming i. 112; ii. 44; iii. 39 

Cbervet v. Jones iii. 293 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal v. Knapp ii. 57 

Ins. Co. u. AUegre ii. 363 

Chcsliire r. Barrett i. 321, 327 

Bank v. Robinson ii. 691 

Cheslyn v. Dalby iii. 69, 378 v. Whittemore ii. 724 

Chester Glass Company v. Dewey i. 452 ; 

ii. 799 
Chcstei-field v. Jansen iii. 108. 141 

Chestertield Manuf. Co. u. Dehon iii. 482 
Chestorman v. Lamb i. 592; iii. 212 

Chestnut Hill Turnpike v. Rutter i. 139 
Chevalier v. Lynch ii. 162 ; iii. 452 

Chevallier v. Straham ii. 158, 161, 166 
Chew V. Gary i. 420 

V. Morton ii. 797 

Clieyney's Case ii. 559 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. 

Co. V. Dewey ii. 233 

Chicliester v. M'Intire iii. 378 

Chick V. Pillsbury i. 280 

Cliickering v. Fowler ii. 192, 194, 195, 


Chicopec Bank v. Chapin i. 259 

i;. Eager ii. 538 



Chiloott V. TrinHe 

i. 305 

Child V. Comber 

iii. 394 

V. Godolphin 

iii. 391 

V. Ilnrdvman 

i. 354 

•. Horden 

ii. 668 

V. Morley 

i. 33 

V. Sun Mutual Ins. Co. ii. 411, 536, 


Cliilde Harold, The ii. 342 

Childer D. Deane iii. 129, 151, 152 

Childs V. Barnum iii. 1 6 

V. Monins i. 121, 128 

Chiles V. Drake iii. 172 

V. Nelson i. 484 

V. Smith ii. 365 

Chilson V. Phillips i. 309 

Chinn v. Hamilton iii. 105 

Chion, ex parte iii. 479, 481 

Cliipman v. Morrill i. 32 

Chippendale v. L. & Y. Eailway Co. 

ii. 244 

tj. Thurston ii. 657; 111.112, 


V. Tomlinson iii. 498 

Chisholm r. Gadsden ii. 777 

Chism 0. Woods i. 575 

Chiswell V. Gray i. 212 

Chitty V. Naish ii. 629, 632 

V. Schvyn ii. 412 

Choice V. Moseley ii. 657 

Cholmondeley v. Clinton i. 115; ii. 503 ; 

iii. 398 

Chomqua v. Mason iii. 96 

Chouteau v. Merry i. 3G7 

V. Steamboat ii. 182 

Chouteaux o. Leach i. 57; ii. 162 

Choreley v. Bolcott ii. 58 

Christian v. Coombe ii. 416 

o. Devereaux iii. 336 

Christiana, The ii. 348 

Christie v. Barnhart iii. 393 

V. Griggs ii. 219, 224, 227 

V. Lewis ii. 301 

V. Simpson iii. 12 

V. Trott ii. 302 

Christman v. Moran ii. 707 

Christopher v. Austin i. 428 

Christophers v. Garr iii. 97 

V. Sparke iii. 61 

Christy v. Douglas i. 115 ; iii. 269 

V. Flemington iii. 66, 71, 85 

V. Row ii. 294 

V. Smith ii. 145 

Chudleigh's Case i. 119 

Chumar v. Wood i. 530 

Church V. Barlow i. 257, 282 

V. Brown i. 506 

V. Clark i. 266 

o. Feterow ii. 652 

V. Hubbsirt ii. 375 

V. Imperial Gas Co. i. 139 

V. Knox i. 206, 207 

Church V. Landers 

i. 347 

V. Mar. Ins. Co. 

i. 86, 135 

V. Roper 

ii. 697 

V. Sparrow 

i. 182 

Churchill v. Hunt 

iii. 186 

V. Rosebuck 

ii. 233 

V. Suter 

iii. 144 

Churchwardens of St. Saviour i. 232 ; ii. 
500, 604, 506 
Chusan, The ii. 264 

Chute V. Pattee ii . 17 

Cincinnati v. White ii. 760, 798 

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Bakewell ii. 387 
V. May ii. 406 

Citizens Bank v. Nantucket Steam- 
boat Co. ii. 170, 174, 178, 181 
City Bank v. Cutter ii. .539, 637, 642 
Bank of Brooklyn i/. McChes- 

ney i, 169 

Council V. Benjamin ii. 763 

Fire Ins. Co. v. Corlies ii. 448 

of Buffalo V. HoUoway i. 109 

of London v. Mitford iii. 368 

V. Puch iii. .373 

of Edinburgh, The ii. 318 

of Worcester v. Worcester lua. 

Co. ii. 431 

Clagett V. Kilbourne i. 148 

V. Sabnon i. 187, 286 

Claghorn v. Cnllen iii. 532 

Glamorgan u. Lane i. 323, 32(i 

Clancey v. Robertson ii. .34 

Clancy v. Piggott iii. 15, 16 

Clanrickard v. Sidney ii. 505 

Clapham v. Cologan ii. 362, 397 

V. Moyle ii. 510 

!'. Shillito • iii. 414 

Clapp u. Rogers i. 169, 204 

V. Smith ii. 762 

V. Thomas iii. 496 

Clare v. Maynard iii. 21 1, 212 

Clarence Railway Co. u. Great North 

of England Railway Co. ii. 534 

Claridge «. Mackenzie i. 508 

Chirisse, The ii. 316, 320 

Clark, ex parte ii. 334 

V. Badgley iii. 113, 123 

V. Baker ii. 51 9, 545 

V. Barlow iii. 103 

V. Barnwell ii. 161, 162, 172, 202, 

287, 292 

u. Bigelow i. 278 

i>. Blackstock iii. 306 

V. Bowen i. 191 ; ii. 733 

;;. Boyd i. 241, 251 

V. Bradshaw iii. 62 

V. Burdett ii. 22 

V. Burt ii. S92 

V. Bush ii. 15, 713 

.;. Caldwell iii 417 

V. Calvert iii. 470, 497 

V. Clark ii. 76, 605 ; iii. 546 



Clark y. Dales 



; iii. 20G 


6'. flavor of N. 


ii. .59 

V. Depuw 

i. 236 

V. Minot 

iii. 472, 502 

V. Dibble 

i. 1G.5 

V. Morey 

i. 398 

V. DijrniiTn 

i. 83 

V. Pcn-ier 

i. 81 

V, Diiismore 

i. 2a 

u. Price 

in. 404 

V. Ely 

i. 259 

i: Slice 

iii. 128 

V. Farmers Man. 


i. 291 

(/. Spenco 

ii. 2.VJ 

V. Piixton 


168, 240 

V. Tliomnson 

i. 2-J6 

V. Flint 


358, 376 

Clarkson v. De Pcyster 

i ]-r> 

V. Foxcroft 

ii. 5 

V. Edos 

ii. 303 

V. Graliam i. Ill 

u. Guardians of Cnckficld Union 

i. 139 
V. H.amilton Ins. Co. ii. 436, 460 
V. Hatcii iii. 443 

V. Ilougliam i. 131 ; iii. 62, 64, 85 
V. Jones iii. 188 

V. King i. 248 

V. Lyman i. 205, 207 

V. Man. Ins. Co. ii. 403, 432, 777 
V. Marsiglia ii. 523 

V. Massacliusetts F. & il. Ins. 

Co. ii. 297, 389 

V. IMauran i. 601 

V. McDonald i. 406 ; ii. 221 

V. Moody iii. 91 

V. ?.Iiirse i, 530 

V. Needles ii. 179 

I'. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 369, 370 

V. New Eng. Ins. Co. ii. 372, 451, 

458, 461 

V. Parr iii. 224, 226 

II. Pendleton iii. 29, 38, 175 

V. Piniiey ii. 500, 655; iii. 197, 


V. Reed i. 189 

V. Remington ii. 13, 662 

V. Rochester, &c. R. R. Co. iii. 352, 

353, 403 

I'. Rogers ii. 722, 723 

V. Russel i. 443, 713 

V. Sclmeidcr i. 250 

V. Shee i. 290 

V. Sigonrney i. 241, 251 ; iii. 81 

V. Siiiall i. 429 ; ii. 6 

i;. Smith ii. 56 

V. Spence ii. 125, 143, 256, 519 

I/. Swift i. 129 

V. United Ins. Co. ii. 366 

V. ^\']litaker iii. 197 

"• White iii. 425, 426 

Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk i. 49 

Clarke, ex ;mr(p iii. 461 

V. Courtney i. 54 

II. Dodge iiealy, Tiie ii. 316, 318 

V. Dutcher iii. 69 

V. Fell iii. 515 

V. Gordon i. 267 

"• Grant iii. 398, 415 

V. Henty i, 285 

V. Hutchins i. 533 

V. Leslie i. 298 

V. Garland iii. 108, 127 

V. Hanway i. 430 

!;. Parker iii. 498 

V. Phcenix Ins. Co. ii. 327, SS'.I 

Clarkson's Adm'r v. Garland iii. 108, 127 

Clasoii V. Bailey iii. 7, 9, 409 

V, Simmonda ii. 414 

u. Smith ii. 402 

Clay, e.r parte i. 21] 

V. Cothell i. 2.i5 

V. Cotrell i. 165 

V. Crofts iii. 295 

V. Crowe i. 292 

V. Harrison i. 598, 599 

V. Huston iii. 217 

i>. Rurtord iii. 379, 389, 413 

V. Smith iii. 439, 442, 554 

V. Wood ii. 231, 232 

Clayards 0. Dethiek ii. 233 

Clayton v. Adams i. 366 

(/. Andrews iii. 53 

V. Gosling iii. 505 

V. Gregson ii. 536, 541, 544 

V. Harmony, The ii. 318 

V. Hunt ii. 252 

V. Kynaston i. 27 

I'. Lord Nugent ii. 549, 550 

u. Pliipps i. 278 

V. Warden ii. 77, 79 

Clayton's Case ii. 633; iii. 140 

Cleave v. Jones iii, 78 

Cleaves v. Foss iii. 12 

f. Stoekwell i. 84 

Clcgg !•. Levy ii. 570 

Clegliorn v. Ins. Bank of Columbus i. 212 

Clement v. Clement i. 221, 228; ii. 652, 


V. Durgin ii. 690, 698 

V. Henley i. 22 

V. Mattison i. 352 

V. Rcid i. 492 

u. Hepard i. 256 

Clement, The ii, 3II 

Clements v. Smith's Adm'rs i, 594 

«. Williams 1. 300 

Clemson v. Daviilson ii. 287 

Clendaniel v. Tuckerraan ii. 295 

Clemontson 0. Blessig ii, ,j05 

Clerk V. Blackstock i. 1 1 

V. Tailors of Exeter ii. 749 

V. Wright iii. 13 

Clermont v. Tasburgh i. 492; iii. 414 



Cleu V. McPlierson i. 545, 5fiO 

Cleve V. Mills iii. 452 

v. Willoughby i. 501 

Cleveliind v. Covington i. 33 

Cleveland Col. & C. R. E. Co. u. 

Kenniy ii. 42 

Cleveland v. Union Ins. Co. ii. 364 

Clcwoi'tli V. Pifkford ii. 741 

Clifford V. Burton i. 351 

V. Hunter ii. 407, 408 

V. Laton i. 347, 353, 355 

V. Parker ii. 723 

V. Richardson iii. 18.i 

D.Turrell ii. 554,555 ; iii, 357, 388 

Clift V. Scluvabe ii. 477 

Clil'ton V. Phillips i. 400, 404 

CUnan v. Cooke i. 47, 111 ; iii. 13, 17, 

387, 394, 398, 403 

Clinton y. York i. 310 

Clapp V. Rogers i. 169 

Clippinger v. Hepbaugh ii. 754 

Clive V. Beaumont iii. 379 

Clodfelter v. Cox i. 230 

Clopliam V. Gallant iii. 468 

Clopper V. Union Bank of Maryland 

1. 257; ii. 713 

Clopton V. Cozart ii. 773 

Cloud !>. Hamilton i. 310 

Clough V. Davis ii. 764 

Cloutman v. Tunison ii. 346, 347 

Clowes V. Brooke i. 297 

V. Clowes i. 83 

V. Higginson iii. 389 

V. Van Antwerp i. 135 

Clugas V. Penaluna ii. 570 

Clunes, ex partis iii. 490 

Clute V. Banow i. 88 

V. Robinson ii. 657 

V. Wiggins ii. 154, 156 

Coalter v. Coalter iii. 89, 90 

Coates V. 'Chapliu iii. 48 

V, Lewis ii. 614, 795 

V. Mayor, &c. of New Y^ork 

V. Perry iii. 327 

V. Sangston ii. 553 

V. Stephens i. 591 

V. Williams i. 155 

„. Wilson i. 297 

Coats V. Holbrook i. 397 

Cobb V. Abbot ii. 229 

V. Becke i. 84 

V. Haydock ii. 737 

V. New England Ins. Co. ii. 361, 

364, 407, 710 

V. Page ii. 16 

u. Selby ii. 534 

V. Symonds iii. 460 

V. Titus iii. 149 

V. Wood ii. 706 

Cobban v. Downe ii. 177 

Cobbett V. Hudson i. 347 

Cobden v. Bolton ii. 252 

Cobham, ex parte i. 211 

Coburn u. Pickering i. 530 

V. Ware i. 465 

Cooheco Manuf. Co. v. Whittier ii. 506 

Cochran v. Fisher ii. 400 

V. Perry i. 197 

V. Retborg ii. 304, 536 

Cock V. Bunn ii. 666 

u. Goodfellow iii. 425, 426, 428 

V. Honychurch ii. 681 

Cocke r. Bank of Tennessee i. 187 

V. Chaney ii. 119 

Cockcll V. Taylor i. 436 

Cocker V. Franklin Hemp & Flax 

Maniif. Co. i. 539 ; ii. 661 

Cockerill i: Cincinnati Ins. Co. ii. 350 

Cockill V. Wetherell ii. 697 

Cocking V. Fraser ii. 383 

V. Ward iii. 35 

Cockran v. Irlam i. 83, 99 

Cockshott V. Bennett ii. 679 

Cockson K. Ogle ii. 691, 692 

Coddington v. Davis i. 271, 278 

Coder v. Huling i. 150 

Codman v. Rogers iii. 89 

Codwise V. Gelston iii. 513 

Coe i'. Clay i. 500 

V. Smith ii. 36 

Coffin V. CofBn iii. 91 

u. Dunham i. 363 

V. Jenkins i. 174,392; ii. 346,347 

V. Lant i. 514 

V. Ncwburyport Ins. Co. ii. 411,412 

!,■. Siorcr ii. 300, 304 V. Williams ^ ii. 9 

Coggeshall v. Am. Ins. Co. ii. 366 

Coggs V. Bernai-d i. 447; ii. 86, 90, 161, 

223 ; iii. 238 

Co"iU V. H. & N. H. R. R. Co. i. 538 

Cognac, The ii. 281 

Cogswell V. Dolliver iii. 73 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 376 

Colica V. Hunt i. 266 

Cohen v. Dupont i. 508 

II. Frost ii. 16'J 

V. Hume ii. 169 

Coit V. Commercial Ins. Co. ii. 536 

V. Houston ii. 639, 655, 681 

V. Smith ii. 363 

[I. Starkweather ii. 559 

«. Tracy iii. 81,84 

& al. '.'. Houston ii. 166 

Coke V. Whorwood ii. 689; iii. 188 

Colbourn v. Dawson ii. 553, 56.'i 

Colby 0. Colby ii. "■■38 

f. Hunter ii. 401 

V. Ledden iii. 514 

V. Norton ii. 797 

Colcock V. Ferguson i. 295, 313 

V. Goode i. 573 

Colcord V. Swan i. 366 

Golden v. Wright i. 6? 

TOL. 1. 




Coldham v. Showier 

ii. 503 

Coklren v. Miller 

iii. 217 

Coll- V. Albers 

iii. 426 

V. Blake 

ii. 645 

V. Bolard 

ii. 795 

V. Cheshire 

ii. 579 

V. Cottingham 

ii. 63, 64 

V. Davies 

i. 530 

V. Dyer 

iii. 15 

s. Goodwin ii. 

199, 234, 236, 237, 

239, 243 

u. Green ii- 788 

V. Hawes ii. 502 

V. Jessup i. 286 ; iii. 96, 98 

V. Kerr i. 535 

V. Lockhart iii- 134 

V. O'Neill i. 369 

V. Pennoyer i. 295 

I). Bobbins i. 384 

V. Ross iii. 215, 216 

1^. Saekett ii. 625 

V. Saxby i. 324, 382 

V. Taylor ii. 555 

V. Trull ii. 631 

u. Turner i. 20 

V. Wade i. 120 

V. White iii. 393 

Colegrove v. H. R. R. Co. ii. 218 

Coleman v. Carpenter i. 280 

11. Fobes iii. 81 

V. Garrigues iii. 11 

V. Harriet, The ii. 342 

V. Riches i. 45; ii. 177, 290 

V. Sherwiii i. 1 1 

V. Upcot iii. 9 

Coles V. Bank of England ii. 799 

V. Bovvne iii. 10, 397 

V. Coles i. 150, 184 

V. Gumey i. 188 

V. Hulme ii. 503 

M. IVtarine Ins. Co. ii. 375, 412, 414 

V. Robins iii. 502 

V. Soulsby ii. 688 

i,. Trecothick i. 47, 86, 87, HI, 43B, 

493; iii. 8, 11, 13, 361, 473 

V. Wight iii. 502 

V. Wright iii. 479 

Colegate v. Bachcler ii. 748 

Colgin V. Henley i. 441 

Col lamer v. Day ii. 756 

Collavd I'. Groom i. 496 

CoUard v. Si\m|■^on iii. 380 

Colledge V. Uaity ii. 400 

V. Horn iii. 62, 69 

CoUonburg, Tlio ii. 297 

Collet V. Podwell ii. 697 

CoUett u. Morrison ii. 354, 473 

Collier v. Baptist Educational Society 

'i. 454 

V. Jenkins iii. 401 

V. NeviU iii. Ii6, 118 

rolUngburne v. Mantell ii. 683 

Collinge V. Hcywood iii. 91 

CoUingwood v. Pace i. 397 

Collins V. Barrow i. 501, 589 

V. B. & E. B. Ey. Co. ii. 213 

V. Blantern i. 455 ; ii. 554 

V. Butler i. 274 

V. Canty i. 515 

u. Champ i. 135 

V. Charlesto^vn Ins. Co. ii. 427, 433 

V. Denison ii. 776 

V. Evans i. 68 ; ii. 775 

V. Everett i. 243 

V. Forbes ii. 135 ; iii. 479 

V. Godefroy i. 437 

V. Hathaway iii. 269 

V. Lemasters i. 12 

V. Martin i. 94, 242, 258 

V. Merrill i. 455 

V. Myers i. 572 

V. Pellerin i. 530 

V. Powell ii. 701 

V. Prentice ii. 534 

u. Price ii. 41 

V. Prosser i. 12, 186 

V. Roberts iii. 120 

V. Rudolph i. 368 

V. Secreh iii. 109 

u. The A. &S. RaUroadCo. iii. 175 

V. TiUou ii. 798 

V. Wallis ii. 740 

V. Westbury i. 394 

V. Wheeler ii. 341 

V. Woodruff . ii. 129 

Collinson i-. Owens iii. 282 

CoUis V. Emett i. 250 

V. Stack iii. 69 

Tollman v. Collins ii. 210 

Collund l: Read i. 150 

CoUumer v. Foster i. 164 

CoUyer v. Fallon i. 226 

Colombo, The ii. 292 

Colonel Ledyard, The ii. 296 

Colpoys 0. Colpoys ii. 561 

Colson !). Bonzey ii. 273 

V. Thompson iii. 355 

V. Welsh ui. 496 

Colt V. McMechen ii. 160 

V. Netterville iii. 50, 460 

V. Partridge ii. 725, 728 

Col. Ins. Co. n. Ashby ii. 325, 328 

u. Lawrence ii. 434, 437, 


V. Lynch ii. 358 

Columbia v. Patterson ii. 57 

Columbus V. Howard ii. 121, 1?' 

& Xenia & L. M. R. R. 

Co. u. Webb ii. 43 

Colvil V. Bcsley i. 462 

Colvin V. Corwin iii. 189 

(.. Holhrook i. 66 

V. Williams iii. 51 

Colwell V. Child u. 694 



Colwill V. Reeves iii. 200 

Colyear v. Countess o( Mulgraye iii. 354, 


Coman v. State ii. 26 

Combe v. Greene ii. 533 

Combe's Case i. 82, 140 

Combs V. Tarlton iii. 229 

Comegys v. Vasse i, 226 

Comfort V. Duncan i. 510 

V. Eisenbeia iii. 507 

Coming, ex parte iii. 280 

Commerce, The ii. 313 

Commercial Bank v. Bobo ii. 625 

V. Colt i. 227 

V. Cunningham i. 257 ; 

ii. 635 

V. Hamer i. 266 

V. Lum ii. 723 

V. Martin ii. 100 

V. Nolan i. 450 ; 

iii. 136 

V. Wilkins i. 204, 205, 


of Buffalo V. Kort- 

right i. 57, 139 ; 

iii. 205, 206 

of Natchez v. The 

St. of Miss. iii. 532 
of Pa. V. Union B'k 
ofN. Y. i. 83 

Commercial Ins. Co. «. Union Ins. 

Co. ii. 350 
V. Whitney ii. 358 
Commissioners u. Pehy i. 452 

Commonwealth v. Bacon iii. 530 

V. Cheney ii. 728 

V. Churchill ii. 728 

1^. Collins i. 367 

V. Courow ii. 50 

V. Crevor iii. 104 

V. Frost iii. 124 

V. Gamble i. 315 

V. Green ii. 122 

V. Hantz i. 316 

V. Hemperly ii. 50 

V. Hunt ii. 594 

V. Kendig ii. 759, 764, 765 
V. Knox ii. 760 

V. Manley i. 251 

V. Mann iii. 530 

U.Murray 1.308, 315 
V. Nesbit ii. 762 

V. Pash ii. 757 

V. Power ii. 226 

V. Proprietors ii. 694 

V. Eicketson ii. 348 

V. Sessions of Norfolk 

iii. 175 
V. Shepherd i. 337 

V. Sherman ii. 796 

V. Stone ii. 622 

V. Turner i. 399, 407 

Commonwealth v. "Wentz i. 337 

V. "Wolf ii. 763 

V. Worcester T. Co. 

ii. 798 

Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Chase ii. 387 

V. Globe Ins. 

Co. iii. 460 

Comp V. Henchman i. 75 

Compton V. Bearcroft ii. 593 

V. Bedford iii. 485 

V. Martin iii. 39 

Comstock, in re iii. 516 

V. Farnum i. 227 

V. Grout iii. 509 

«. Hutchinson i. 592; iii. 211 

V, Rayford i. 530 

V. Smith ii. 624 

Comus, The ii. 321 

Comyns v. Boyer i. 458 

Conant K. Guesnard i. 419 

V. Raymond ii. 52, 53 

V. Seneca County Bank i. 230 

Couard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. ii. 275, 285 ; 

iii. 276, 487, 488, 513 

V. Pacific Ins. C. iii. 172 

Cone V. Baldwin i. 255 

Conger v. King i. 88 

Congreve v. Evetts i. 523 

Coningham v. Plunkett iii. 360 

Conkey v. Hopkins ii. 7 

Conklin v. Carson iii. 449 

Conkling v. Underbill iii. 118 

Conly V. Grant i. 214, 216 

Conn V. Coburn L 298 ; ii. 4 

V. Conn i. 368 

V. Wilson ii. 70 

Connecticut v. Jackson ii. 635, 636 ; iii. 

151, 152 
Conn. Ins. Co. ^. N. Y. & N. Haven 

R. Co. ii. 480 

Connelly v. Cheever i. 201 

Conner v. City of New York iii. 530 

V. Coffin i. 511 

V, Henderson i. 580 

V. Robinson ii. 537, 545 

Ccnnerat v. Goldsmith ii. 4 

Connersville v. Wadleigh ii. 773 

Connory v. Kendall i. 255, 2bl 

Connor v. Bellamont ii. 586 

ConoUy v. Kettlewell ii. 1 1 

V. Pardon ii. 550, 562 

Conover v. Mat. Ins. Co. ii. 451 

Conro V. Pt. Henry I. Co. i. 204 

Conroe v. Birdsall i. 313, 317, 329 

Conroy v. Warren i. 206 

Const V. Harris i. 192 

Constable v. Cloeberry i. 1 2 

V. Noble ii. 354 

Constantia, The i. 596 

Constantine !). Constantine ii. 514 

Constitution, The, v. Woodworth ii. 271 

Contee v. Dawson ii. 703 



Converse v. Bradley iii- -tSS 

y. Citizens Ins. Co. ii. 4.39 

V. Converse ■■ 387 

V. AlrKce i- 211 

Conway, ex parte "'■ ■*-•'' 

„. Beazley ii. 593, C()4 

V. Bush i- 534 

V. Gray "■ 305 

Tool Co. l: Hudson River 

Ins. Co. ii. 458 

Conwcll V. SMiuUiilge i- 197 

Couyers v. Knnis ii. 7/3 

V. Kenans iii- 99 

Cook V. I! ink of Louisiana i. 52 

V. Black ii. 482 

;•■ Braillev i. 8, 31 1,429, 434, 43.5, 4+4 

V. Caldei'ott iii. 485 

V. C'liauiplain Trans. Co. ii. 2.31 

r. Conim. Ins. Co. ii. 379 

!'. Darling i. 276 

V. Ellis iii. 174 

B. Field ii. 478 

V. Genesee Mutual Ins. Co. ii. 620 

i.. Hanle ii. 639 

V. Hill iii. 175 

V. 1 lusted ii. 46 

u. Jennings ii. 299, 516 

V. Jonos iii. 299 

V. Litchfield i. 277, 2S;i 

V. .Martle ii- 150 

V. Mo Hat iii- 441 

V. Mosclcy i. 581 

V. Newman i. 130, 226 

V. Pritchard iii. 4-i:i 

V. Sattcrlce i. 249 

V. Southwick i- 243 

/,- Stearns ii- 511 

V. Stocks iii- 343 

V. Wottoa i 18 

Cooke, ex parte iii. 493 

i;. Bo»th i. 500 

u. Callaway i. 274 

I'. Clayworth i. 384; iii. 417 

V. Colehan i. 249 

r. Cooke i. 416 

u. French i. 2.S:3 

V. O.^loy i. 48.3 

V. Tombs iii. 17 

V. Whorwood ii. 464 

Cooke's Appeal i. L'!-") 

Ca^e i- 512 

Cookendcrfer «- Preston ii. 539, -■)4.5 

Cookcs i;. iVIisrall ii. 72 

Cooley y. Board of Wardens of the 

Port of Philadelphia ii. 348 

V. Rose ii. 636 

Coolidge n. Brigham i. 575 ; ii. 680 ; iii. 

212, 213 

a. Gloucester Ins. Co. ii. 369. 

c. Gray 
i>. I'ayson 

385, 390 

ii. 636 

i. 258, 267 

Coolidge '•. Ruggles 
Coombe v. Greene 

V. Miles 
Coomb.s ('. Emery 

V. Tarleton 
Cooraer v. Bro]nIey 

I. 227 
ii. 532 
iii. i09 

i. 458 
iii. 230 

i. IS"! 

Coon V. Syracuse & Utica R. R. ii. 43 

Coope V. Eyre i. 174, 177 

Cooper V. i. 541 ; ii. 695 

V. Bigalow ii. 733 

I', Biandy ii. 797 

V. Bockett ii. 723 

V. Chitty iii. 469, 473 

1!. Dedrich iii. 16 

u. Elston iii- 34 

u. Johnson ii. 712 

V. Martin i. 309, 4-33 

V. Parker ii. 618; iii. 66 

V. Pena iii. 352 

u. Phillips i. 299 ; ii. 41 

u. Rankin i. 47 

c'. Robinson ii. 740 

V. Smith ii. 797 ; iii. 5 

f. South 

ii. 27.1 

V. StcVL-nson 

i. 114 

o. Turner 

iii. 61 

u. TwibiU 

i. 589 

u. Willoinatt 

ii. 125 

r. WwMt 

iii. 493 

Coopwood V. \yallac8 i. 115, 116 ; ii. 56 

Coosa, The n. 399 

C'ootli II. Jackson iii. 59, 378, 390, 394 

Cope V. Albinson i. 476 

V. Burt ii. 83 

V. Cope ii. 514 

!•. Cordova ii. 191, 194, 29-i 

t. Dodd ii. 538, 541, 54-'! 

V. Joseph ii. 740 

u. Rowlands i. 458 ; ii. 7-).i 

II. Smith ii. 23 

Copeland, ex parte iii. 464, 4B3 

V. Copeland ii. 794, 793 

V. Mercantile Ins. Co. i. 51 ; 

ii. 353 

u. New England Ins. Co. 

ii. 407, 408, 449 

V. Stein iii. 237, 3;)2 

V. Stephens iii. 467, 480 

o. Watts i. 510 

Copeman r. Gallant iii. 479 

Copis v. Middleton ii. 5, 6 

Copland, cr parte i. 21 1 

r. Bosquet i. 174, 177 

Copp y. McDugall i. 271 

Cop]icr V. Wells ii. 703 

Coppin V. Braithwaite ii. 226 ; iii. 167, 1C9, 


V. Coppin ii. 371 

V. Craig i. 97, 467, 497 ; ii. 743 

V. Walker i. 497 ; ii- 743 

Coppock 0. Bower i. 440 ; ii. 755 

Corbett v. Brown ii. 772, 774 



Corbin r. Am. Mills 
Core's Case 
Coi-dwcU V. Martin 
Cork V. Baker 

i. 103 

ii. 512 

iii. 308 

ii. 63 

Cork & Bandon Railway v. Caze- 

nove i. 335, 336 
Corlies v. Gumming i. 95 
Cornelius v. Vanarsdallen ii. 725 
Cornell v. Green' ii. e.'jg 
V. Jackson iii. 224, 227 
V. Moulton ii. 664 
V. Todd ii. 503 
Corney «. DaCosta i. 279 
Cornfoot u. Fowke i. 61 ; ii. 402, 780 
Cornish w.-Abington ii. 799 
Cornwall v. Hoyt i. 367 
V. Haight i. 526, 537 
V. Wilson i. 82, 95 
Cornwell v. Voorliees ii. 144 
Cornwell's Appeal iii. 469 
Cororaandel, The ii. 316, 320 
Corp 1.-. McComb i. 275, 280 
Corps V. Robinson i. 187 
Corrie v. Onslow iii. 493 
Corsbie v. Free iii. 467 
Cort V. Ambergate, &c., Railway Com- 
pany ii. 676 
Cortelyou v. Lansing ii. 112 
Corwin v. Benham iii. 275 
Cory V. Bretton iii. 66 
V. Cory i. 384 
■ Coslake v. Till ui. 368, 384 
Cosmopolite, The ii. 360 
CoBsens, er parte iii. 519 
Coster V. Murray iii. 89 
V. Thomason . i. 163 
V. Turner ' iii. 381 
Costigaa v. Newland i. 79 
u. The Mohawk & Hudson 

Railroad Co. ii. 34; iii. 194 

Cotes V. Davis i. 352 

Cothay v. Fennell i. 55, 62 

V. Murray iii. 505 

V. Tute i. 533 

Cotherw. Merrick ii. 513 

Cottam V. Partridge iii. 73, 74, 88, 89 

Cotteen v. Missing i. 235 

Cotterel v. Harrington iii. 140 

Cotterill, ex parte iii. 479 

V. Starkey ii. 230 

Cottington's Case ii. 608 

Cotton, in re iii. 460, 462 

V. Blane ii. 6 

V, Goodwin ii. 645 

V. Thurland ii. 627, 747 

Cottrell, ex parte iii- 508 

V. Conklin i. 243 

Cottrill V. Van Difzen i. 158, 174, 175 

Coty V. Barnes i. 569, 571 

Couch V. Mills i. 28 

Coulon ". Uowne ii. 403 

Coulslou ". Carr i. 455 

Coulter V. Robertson i. 456 

Coulter's Case iii. 221 

Counden v. Clarke ii. 559 

Countess of Rutland's Case ii, 549 

Countess of Portsmouth v. Earl of 

Portsmouth iii. 461 

Courcier r. Hitter , i. 81 

Comsen o. Hamlin i. 203 

Courtniiy v. Miss. Ins. Co. ii. 350 

Courtney v. N. Y. City Ins. Co. ii. 356, 

Courtwright v. Stewiirt iii. 56 

Coutourier v. Hastie i. 92, 522, 568 ; ii. 
11; iii. 27 
Coutts V. Walker iii. 513 

Covar V. Bingham i. 465 

Coventry v. Atherton iii. 94 

Covin V. Hill iii. 254 

Cowan, ex parte iii. 468 

V. Braidwood ii. 606 

Cowas-jeew. Thompson i. 606 

Cowel 0. Simpson i. 98 ; iii. 243, 247, 248, 


Cowell V. Botteley ii. 701 ; iii. 270 

V. Brothers, The • ii. 319 

V. Edwards i. 34, 35 

u. Watts i. 129 

Cowie V. Harris iii. 503 

V. Rcmfry iii. 8 

V. Stilling i. 250 

Cowing V. Snow ii. 287 

Cowles V. Harts i. 283 

V. Whitman iii. 375 

Cowling 0. Beachum ii. 629 

Cowsar I'. Wade ii. 745 

Cox, ex parte iii. 471 

V. Adams ii. 34 

V. Brain ii? 637, 638 

II. Buck ii. 796 

V. Cooper ii. 742 

V. Jagger ii. 690 

V. Kitchin i. 366 

V. McBurney i. 149, 152 

V. Midland Railway Co. i. 48 

V. Murray ii. 264 

V. Prentice i. 79 

t. Runnion i. 378 

V. Sprigg iii. 359 

V. Strode iii. 224, 226 

V. United States • ii. 5S3 

Coxe V. Gent ii. 694 

V. Harden i. 605; ii. 292 

V. Lundy ii. 694 

V. State Bank ii. 622, 735 

Copon V. Gi-cat Western Ry. Co. ii. 21.5, 

Cove V. Leach ii. 485 

Coyle V. Fowler i. 428, 431 

Coyscgame, ex parte iii. 499 

Cozzins V. Wliitiiker i. 575, 584, 592 

Crahton v. Kile i. 592 

Crabtree v. Clark ii. 303 



Crabtree v. May i. 262 

Craddock v. Aid fidge ii. 530 

V. Riddlesbarger i. 518 

Craft V. Isham ii. 14, 15, 6G2 

Crafts V. Mott iii. 507 

Cragg V. Bowman i. 354 

Craggin v. Bailey iii. 507 

Craig V. Blow ii. 775 

V. Childress ii. 165 

V. Hawkias ii. 706 

V. Hewitt iii. 107 

V. Leslie i. 135 

V. Murgatroyd ii. 457, 480 

V. U. S. Ins. Co. ii. 408 

V. Wells ii. 503 

Craighead v. The Bank iii. 73 

Crain v. Beech iii. 188 

V. Petrie iii. 181 

Cram v. Aiken ii. 327 

V. Cadwell i. 186 

V. Prench i. 178 

V. Hendricks i. 258; iii. 144, 147 

Cramer v. Bradshaw i. 582 

Cramp v. Symons ii. 703 

Crane v. Conklin i. 384 

!). Dygert iii. 1 04 

V. Trench i. 209 

V. Gough iii. 57, 396 

«. Hubbel iii. 116 

V. Roberts ii. 655 

Cranley v. Hillary ii. 636 

Cranston v. Clarke i. 502 

V. Marshall ii. 288 

V. Phila. Ins. Co. ii. 353 

Cranstown «. Johnston iii. 378 

Crantzt). Gill i. 299 

Cranwell v. Ship Fanny Fosdick iii. 194 

Crapo V. Allen ii. 343, 344 

Craufurd v. Blackburn ii. 77 

0. Hunter ii. 362, 368 

Craven v. Craven ii. 696 

!). Ryder i. 608 

Crawford v. Cliute ii. 727 

V. Clark ii. 191 

V. Louisiana State Bank i. 85 

V. Slade ii. 727 

•7. Smith i, 526, 528 

V. Stirling i. 186; ii. 740 

V. Willing iii, 103 

V. Wilson ii. 578, 579, 580 

Crawshay K. Collins i. 154, 195, 199, 201, 

202, 204 ; ii. 708 

V. Eades i. 483 

V. Maule i. 151, 155, 195, 196, 

202, 204 ; in. 367 

Craythome v. Swinburne i. 32, 36 ; ii. 5 

Creed, in re ii. 484 

V. Stevens iii. 118 

Creery v. Hollis ii. 327 

Creigiiton x\ IngersoU iii. 269 

Cremer 21. Hij.'ginson i. 186; ii. 13, 21 

Cresson v. Stout i. 512 

Cressinger v. Lessee of Welch i. 326, 328 ; 

ii. 767 

Cripps V. Davis iii. 71, 86 

V. Golding i. 455 

Crisdee v. Bolton iii. 158, 162 

Crisp V. Anderson iii, 341 

V. Churcliill i. 297 

V. Gamel i. 455 

Crist !'. Brindle ii. 739 

Crittenden v. Jones iii. 438 

Croat V. DeWolf ii. 340 

Crocker v. Franklin H. & F. Man. 

Co. ii. 535 

V. Higgins i. 468 

V. Lewis ii. 779 

V. Orpen iii. 357, 373 

V. Peoples Ins. Co. ii. 403, 431 

V. Whitney i. 226, 228, 229 

Crockett v. Newton ii. 313 

Crockford v. Winter i. 73 

Crofoot V. Bennett i. 528 

Croft V. Alison i. 102 

Crofts V. Beale i. 258 

0. Marshall ii. 375, 543 

V. Waterhouse ii. 220, 222, 227 

Croker v. Orpen iii. 357, 373 

Cromwell, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Lovett ii. 623 

V. Owings ii. 690 

Cronise ;;. Clark i. 295 

Crookewit v. Fletcher ii. 300 

Crook V. Jadis i. 255 

V. Stephen ii. 715 

u. Williams i. 86 

Crooke v. Slack ii. 263 

Crooker v. Orooker i. 205 

Crooks 1'. Mo(5re i. 534 

Crookshank v. Bmrell iii. 55 

T'loom V. Shaw i. 60 

Croome v. Lediard iii. 357, 390, 4IJ5 

Cropp V. Hamljleton ii. 639 

Crosbie v. McDoual iii. 359 

Crosby v. Berger ii. 59£ 

V. Fitch u. 169, 286 

V. Loop i. 516 

V. Wailsworth iii. 33, 58 

u. Wyatt ii. 27 

Crosley v. Arkwright i. 458 

Cross V. Andrews i. 383; ii. 147 

!). Black i.329 

V. Bryant iii. 426 

V. Cross i. 337 

V. Peters ii. 773 

V. Sackctt ii. 780 

V. Shutliflf ii, 414, 415 

Crosse r. Androes i. 31 6 

V. Gardner i. 573 

V. Lawrence . iii. 393 

V. Smith i. 278 

Crossing r. Scudamore ii. 505 

Crouch V. Great West. Ry, Co, ii, 211, 218 

u. Gridley iii, 516, 524 



Cvouch V. The London, &c., Railway 

Co. ii. 174, 175, 240 

Ci'oughton V. Forrest i. 185 

Crousillat d. Bull ii. 390 

Crout V. Do Wolf ii. 798 

Crow I'. Rogers i. 466 

Crowder v. Austin i. 497 

Crowdus 0. Shelby i. 35 

Crowe V. Clay ii. 625 

Crowell V. Beebe ii. 797 

I'. Davis ii. 706 

V. Gleason i. 393 
Oixjwfoot V. Gurney i. 218 ; iii. 312 

Crowhurst v. Laverack i. 437 

Crowley v. Vitty i. 509 

Crowly V. Cohens ii. 363, 443 

Crowther v. Solomons iii. 341 

Crozer v. Chambers i. 243 

u. Pilling ii. 640 

Crozier v. Carr i. 52 

Cruder i.-. Penn. Ins. Co. ii. 407 

V. Phil. Ins. Co. ii. 407 

Cmger v. Armstrong i. 242 

V. Jones i. 369 

Criiikshank v. Janson ii. 400 

Cruickshanks v. Rose ii. 630 

Crumpbacker v. Tucker iii. 237, 253 

Crump V. U. S. Mining Co. i, 61 

Crusader, The ii. 337 

Crusoe v. Bugby i. 506 

Crymeo v. Day i. 321 
Cud V. Rutter i. 492 ; iii. 369 

CufF V. Penn ii. 555 

Cuffy V. Castillon i. 400, 401 

Cuthbertson v. Shaw ii. 311 

Culbreatn v. Culbreath iii. 398 

Cnllam v. Valentine ii. 713 

CuUen V. Butler ' ii. 376 

!•. Duke of Queensbury i. 125 

CuUough V. Wainwright ii. 549 

Culver V. Asliley i. 52 ; ii. 690 
Cumber v. Wane i. 222 ; ii. 618, 619 

Cumberland Bank v. Hall ii. 722 

V. Hann i. 256 
Cumberland, Inhab. of, v. Inhab. of 

North Yarmouth ii. 711 

Cumberland, The ii. 318 
Cumberland Valley Prot. Co. 

V. Schell ii. 455 

Cuming V. Hill ii. 50, 51 

Cummer v. Milton ii. 582 

Cumming v. Forrester ii. 740 

V. Roebuck i. .543; iii. 13 

Ctimmings v. Arnold ii- 305 

V. Banks ii. 609 

V. Dennett i. 429 

</. Harris iii. 251, 252 

V. Powell i. 296, 320 

V. Spruance iii. 172, 183 

Curamings' Appeal i. 373 

u. Williams ii. 738 

...Wise iii. 117, 121 

Cundell v. Dawson 
V. Gridley 
Cundy V. Marriott 
Cunliffe V. Booth 

V. Harrison 

i. 459 

iii 516, 524 

iii, 305 

i. 255 

iii. 45 

Cunningham v. Ashbrook i. 525, 528 ; iii, 


V. Cunningham i. 409 

V, Freeborn iii. 428 

V. Hall ii. 273 

V. Irwin i. 356 

V. Knight i. 316 

V Morrrell ii. 519, 529 

V. Smith ii. 771 

Curling v. Chalkleu ii. 1 5 

V. Long ii. 287 

Currier v. Barker i. 514 

V. Currier i. 525 

V. Fellows i. 35 

V. Hodgdon i. 226 

Curry v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. ii. 402, 

424, 435, 461 

V. Larer iii. 162 

V. Rogers i. 453 

Curtin v. Patton i. 324, 329 

Curtis V. Barcley iii. 261 

0. Brown iii. 22, 23 

V. Drinkwater ii. 227 

V. Gibbs ' ii. 609 

V. Groat iii. 200 

.;. Hall i. 384 

V. Hannay iii. 21 1 

V. Hubbard ii. 624 

V. Hunt iii. 337 

V. Hutton iii. 456 

a. Pugh iii. 45 

V. Vernon i. 132 

V. Wai-d iii. 196 

Cnrtis's Ex. v. Bank of Somerset i. 128 

Curtiss V. Greenbanks ii. 653 

V. Lawrence iii. 166 

V. R. & S. R. R. Co. ii. 220 

Cushing V. Arnold iii. 503 

V. John Frazer, The ii. 309 

V. ThtjmpBon ii. 440 

Cushman v. Bailey i. 156 

V. Blanchard iii. 225 

V. North-western Ins. Co. ii. 455, 


V. Holyoke i. 528 

Cussons V. Skinner ii. 40 

Cuthbert v. Cummings ii. 536, 545 

V. Haley iii. 120 

Cutler V. Close i. 464 

V, Everett ii. 6 

V. How i. 437; iii. 116, 161 

1^. Hinton ii. 11 

V. Johnson i. 437 

V. Rand ii. 480 

V. Southern iii. 186 

V. Thurlo ii. 280 

<j WInsor i. 161 ; ii. 301 



Cutter V. Copelaiid i. 530 

!'. Davenport ii. 571 

V. Powell ii. 36, 338, 522, 538, 659 

V. Reynolds i. 430 

Cutts y. Perkins i. 227, 228 

V. Salmon i. 86 

Cuxon V. Chadley i. 219, 220 

Cuyler v. Cuvler ii. 713 

V. Sanford iii. 136 

V. Stevens i. 282, 283 

Cuvuo^a County Bank v. Hunt ii. 413 

Cynthia, The ii. 333 

Cypress, The ii. 338 


Dabney v. Stidger i. 188 
Diidman Man. Co. v. Worcester Ins. 

Co. ii. 356 
Dadmun Manuf. Co. u. Worcester Ins. 

Co. ii. 439, 452 

D'Aqaila v. Lambert i. 598 

Dacosta i\ Davis ii. 583 

Da Costa v. Edmunds ii. 363 

V. Firth ii. 363 

V. Ncwnhara ii. 3i^7 

Daglish V. Davidson ii. 332 

r. Jarvje ii. 472 

Dails V. Lloyd i. 88 

Dain V. Wycofif ii. 71 

Dakin v. Williams ii. 532; iii. 163 

Dalby v. Hirst i. 505 

I'. India Ass. Co. ii. 479 

V. Pullen i. 495 ; iii. 382 

Dale V. Cook ii. 738 

V. Hall ii. 171, 

Dalgleish v. Brooke ii. 

Dally i'. Smith iii. 

Dalrymple v. Dalyrymple ii. 75, 82, 

Dalton V. Irvin i 

Daly V. Duugan iii. 

Dalzell V. Crawford iii. 

Dame v. Baldwin i. 

V. Wing.ite ii. 

Damon v. Inhabitants of Granby i. 

V. Osborne i. 

Damot V. N. O. & CaroUton R. R. 

Co. ii. 

556: iii. 103, 

Dana v. Coombs 

V. Fi'.dler i 

</. Hancock 

V. Lull 

V. Sawyer 
Dancey v. Richardson 
Dance v. Girdler 
Dand v. Kingscote 
Dandridge v. Harris 
Dane v. Kirkwall 
Danforth v. Adams 
V, Culver 
V, facoharie Turnpike Co. 


,. 84 

. 19 
. 70 

Dangerfield v. Thomas 

Daniel v. Adams 
V. Ballard 
u. Bowles 
u. Cartony 
V. Mitchell 

Daniels, ex parte 
V. Hatch 

iii. 479 

1. 41, 58, 59 

i. 34, 37 

ii. 63, 65 

iii. 116, 118 

i. 579 

iii. 460, 508 

ii. 686 

V. Hudson River Ins, Co. ii. 422, 

432, 435 

V. Pond i. 510, 512 

D' Anion v. Deagle ii. 181 

Danlcy v. Rector ii. 797 

Dann v. Dolman i. 458 

c. SpuiTier i. 507 ; ii. 506, 796 

Dante, The ii. 283 

Dantzic, The ii, 319 

Darby v. Baines ii. 268 

V. Boucher i. 298, 352 

V. Mayer ii. 571 

Darbyshire v. Parker i. 282 

Darcy )•, Askwith ii. 534 

D'Arcy v. Kctchum ii. 611 

Darling v. March i. 186 

Darst V. Roth i. 110 

Dart V. Dart ii. 790 

Dartmouth College v. Woodward iii. 527, 

.528, 529, 5.-i2, 546, 548 

Dartnall v. Howard i. 84, 85, 447 

Da^hicll V. Attorney-General ii, 558 

Daubigny v. Duval i. 59, 93; iii. 273 

V. Davallon i. 398 

Davenport v. Bishopp 

V. Gear 

V. Mason 

V. Rackstrow 

V. Tilton 

>'. Wood bridge 

Davey v. C'liamberlaiu 

V. Ma-^on 
David I'. Ransom 
Davidson v. i;!idg-C]>ort 

iii. 361 

i. 164 

iii. 59 

i. 24 

iii. 514 

i. 2.30 

ii. 122 

ii, 181 

ii. 757 

ii. 625 

f. Cooper ii. 716, 717, 721, 724 

c. Graham 
V. Little 
Davies v. Davics 
V. Edwards 
V. Humphreys 

f. Mann 
V. Smith 
Davis V. Allen 

V. Anderson 
!>. Boardman 
V. Bradford 

11. |.'>D 

ii. 240 

i. 436 

ii. .54 

iii. 76 

33,36, 37, 470; 

iii. 91 

ii. 231,232, 310 

i. 382 

i. 170 

iii. 426 

i. 62 ; ii. 353 

i. 470 

V. Bradley i. 538; ii. 796; iii. 264 
t>. Browsher iii. 264 

u. Carlisle ii. 719 

V. Child ii. 264 

V. Clumsou ii. 5S3 

V. Coburn i. 223 



Diivis V. Corrnop i. 510 

V. Crow iii. 204 

V. Curry i. 403 

V. Dodd i. 292 

u. Duke of Marlborougli i. 225 

V. Emerson i. 34 

V. Fish ii. 757; iii. 178 

V. Freeman iii.. 158 

V. Garr ■ iii. 97, 114 

V. Garrett i. 86 ; ii. 286 

V. Goodenow ii. 47 

V. Goweu i. 181 

I'. Hanly i. 280 

V. Hardacre Iii. 109 

u. Higgins ii. 23 

V. Hill i. 528 

V. Holbrook ii. 757 

V. Hone iii. 352, 417 

V. Huggins ii. 25 

V. Hunt i. 574 ; ii. 725 

V. Jacquin i. 294, 419 

■ V. Jenny ii. 721 

V. Jones i. 513 ; ii. 554 

V. Lane i. 71, 199, 262 

V. Leslie ii. 337 

r. Lyman iii. 228 

V. Mason ii. 749 

V. Maxwell i. 33, 36, 519, 520 

V. Meeker i. 580 

V. M. S. & N. J. R. R. Co. ii. 255 

B. Moore iii. 44 

V. Morgan i. 444 

i;. Newton iii. 481, 482, 515 

V. Noaks ii. 687 

V. Oswell iii. 20'l 

V. Penton iii. 158 

V. Reynolds iii. 319 

V. Howell iii. 1 1 

V. Sanders ii. 795 

V. Seneca, The ii. 267 

V. Shapley iii. 524 

V. Shields i. 541, 54-6; iii. 8, 205 

r. Smith i. 324; iii. 73, 226 

V. Steiner iii. 69 

V. Symonds i. 492; iii. 382,388, 389 

V. Tallcot ii. 5.54, 661, 728; iii. 183 

V. Thomas ii. 798 

V. West iii. 372 

V. Willan ii. 252 

t. Williams iii. 299 

V. Wood i. 404 

Davison v. Seymour ii. 755 

Davy's Case ' iii. 468 

Davoue v. Fanning i. 87, 135 

Dawes v. Boylston i. 227 ; iii. 455 

V. Cojje i. 529 

V. Head iii. 455 

V. Howard 1. 304, 309 

V. Peck i. 533 

V. Pinner iii. 151 

Dawkes v. Lord De Loraine i. 249 

Dawn, The ii. 378, 340, 343, 344 

Dawson v. Atty 

ii. 404 

V. Charaney 

ii. 146 

V. Collis 

i. 593 

V. Ewing 

ii. 640 

a. Godfrey 

iii. 355, 532 

V. Lawes 

ii. 24 

V. Macdonald 

iii. 340 

V. Morrison 

i. 43 

V. Real Estate Bank 

ii. 26 

Day, ex parte 

iii. 509 

V, Berkshire Woollen C 

0. iii. ICLi 

V. Cummings 

iii. 120, 126 

V. Dunham 

iii. 149 

V. Elmore 

ii. 29, iii. 16 

V. Lafferty 

ii. 642 

V. Laflin 

iii. 469 

V. Lockwood 

i. 203 

V. Newman i. 

493 ; iii. 361 

V. Noble 

ii. 335 

V. Ridgway 

ii. 25 

0. Trig 

ii. 5,50 

V. Woodworth 

iii. 165, 173 

Deacon c. Gridley 

i. 444 

Deal V. Bogue 

i. 209 

Dcanu. Allalley 

i. 513 

r. Allen 

ii. 735 

u. Am. Ins. Co. 

ii. 477 

V. Hall 

i. 243 

V. Hewit 

iii. 83, 86 

V. Hornby 

ii. 378 

V. James 

ii. 641 

V. Keate 

ii. 122 

V. Mason 1. 462, 

577, 584, 589 

V. M;Ghie 

ii. 280 

V. Newhall 

i. 27, 28 

u. Richmond 

ii. 85 

V. Williams 


Deane v. Annis 

i. 302 

Dearborn v. Cross 

ii. 555 

V. Dearborn 

i. 114 

V. Bowman 

i. 472 

V. Turner 

i. 538 

Dearie v. Barrett 

ii. 637, 638 

Dease v. Jones 

iii. 95 

Deason v. Boyd 

i. 322, 327 

De Barante v. Gott 

ii. 600 

De Bcgnis v. Armistead i 

458 ; ii. 747 

Do Beil V. Thompson 

iii. 4, 29 

De Bernales v. Fuller 

iii. 104 

De Bcrdt v. Atkinson 

i. 270, 278 

De Berkom v. Smith 

i. 189 

Deblois u. Ocean Ins. Co. 

ii. 383, 386, 

406, 408,415 

De BoUe' v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. ii. 420, 


Debolt V. The Ohio Life Ins 

& Trust 


iii. 544, 545 

De Boom v. Priestly 

ii. 59 

De Bouchout v. Goldsmid 

i. 59, 93 

De Bras v. Forbes 

i. -IM 

De Briar v. Minturn 

ii !; 

Decamp w.Feay 

iii 38C, 400 



Decamp v. Stevens ii. 37 

Decliapeaurouge, ex parte iii. 463, 465 

Decluirnis v. Horwood i. 23 

Deckard v. Case i. 178 

Decker v. Judson ii. 789 

V. Livingston i. 26 

V. Sliaffer iii. 23 

De Costa v. Mass. JMining Co. iii. 166 

V. Jones ii. 756 

Decouche v. Savetier ii. 590, 591, 599 ; 

iii. 436 

• Decreet v. Burt i. 36 

Dedham Bank v. Chickering i. 456 

Dcrlerick v. Lemati ii. 618 

Decks V. Strutt i. 127 

Deering, ,?j; juarte iii. 400 

V. Chapman i. 456 

V. Winchelsea i. 36 

Deer Isle v. Eaton i. 470 

Deerly v. Mazarine i. 367 

Dccv, ex parte iii. 495 

Deeze, ex parte iii. 254, 256, 483, 514 

De Forest v. Fulton Ins. Co. ii. 421, 441, 


Deford V. Reynolds i. 166 

V. The Fire Ins. Co. i. 94 ; ii. 

353, 360 

Do Forrest v. Bacon iii. 426 

u. Hunt iii. 62 

V. Leete iii. 228 

V. Strong iii. 135 

V. Wright i. 104, 108 

Defrance v. Austin ii. 48 

Defreeze v. Tramper i. 575 

De Gaillon v. L'Aigle i. 95, 367 

Degg V. M. Rig. Co. ii. 43 

De Hahn v. Hartley ii. 352, 405 

De Havilhrnd (', Bowcrbank iii. 104 

Delafield v. Illinois i. 51, 58, 59, 291 

Dclahay «. Memphis Ins. Co. ii. 436 

Delametcr c. Miller i. 283 

Delano v. Bartlett i. 250 

u. Blake i. 327 

V. Rood iii. 108, 109 

De La Chaumette v. Bank of 

England i. 258 

De La Vega v. Vienna ii. 588, 590 

Delavergiie v. Norris ' iii. 228, 230 

Delaware, The, c. The Ospray ii. 311 
Del. Bank v. Jarvis i, 264 

Delaware Canal Co. v. "Westchester 

Bank i. 468 

Delery v. Mornet i. 403 

De Lisle v. Priestman ii. 120 

Delmonico v. Guillaume i. 149 

Deloach ». Turner iii, 66 

Deloney r. Hutcheson i. 1 50 

Da Long v. Stanton ii. 691 

De Longuemere v. N. Y. Fire In.s. Co. 

ii. 365, 557 
V. Tradesmens Ins Co. 

ii. 421, 432 

Deloret v. Rothschild iii. 365 

Delver v. Barnes ii. 703, 705 

Demainbray u. Metcalf iii. 240, 272, 274 

Demarest v. Willard iii. 467 

I). Wynkoop iii. 95 

De Mcdeiros v. Hill i. 533 

Demeritt v. Exchange Bank iii. 5.54 

Demi V. Bossier i. 510 

Demming v. Kemp iii. 193 

Demmon v. Boylston Bank iii. 483 

De Mott f. Laraway ii. 169, 184 

Demott I?. Swain i. 187 

Den 0. Demarest ii. 791 

V. Farlee ii. 722 

V. Hammel i. 88 

d. Freeman v. Heath i. 507 

d. Howell V. Ashmore i. 507 

d. University of North Carolina 

V. Foy iii. 528 

d. Wright V. Wright ii. 717 

Dondy v. Powell ii. 742 

Denegre v. Hiriart i. 283 

Denew v. Daverell i. 85, 99 ; ii. 740 

Denison v. Lee iii. 103 

V. Seymour ii. 348 

Denman v. Bloomer i. 58 

Denn d. Burne v. Rawlins i. 514 

V. Chubb iii. 220 

V. Cornell ii. 798 

t>. Diamond iii. 327 

Dennett v. Cutts i. 116 ; ii. 56; iii. 269 

u. Short ii. 655 

t/. Wyman i. 261 

Dennie v. Elliott ii. 735, 736 

V. Walker i. 270 

Dennis v. Alexander i. 528 

V. Barber iii. 198 

V. Clark i. 304, 312 

V. Ludlow ii. 352 

V. Manefold iii. 287 

V. Morrice i. 278 

Dennison v. Thomaston Ins. Co. ii 402 

Dennisten v Imbrie iii. 152 

Donniston v. Cook ii. 756, 757 

V. Stewart i. 284 

Dennistoun v. Lillie ii. 403 

Denston v. Henderson i. 288 

V. Perkins iii. 482 

Denny v. Cabot i. 160 

V. Conway Ins. Co. ii- 422 

V. Gilmaii ii. 772 

u. Lincoln i. 570 

V. Manhattan Co. i. 65 ; ii. 501 

u. N. Y. Cent. R. R. iii. 181 

V. Palmer i. 279 

V. Williams iii. 43 

Denton v. East Anglian Railway i. 139 

V. Emburv iii. 92 

u. G. N. Ry. Co. ii. 240, 2S8 

u. Noyes i. 113 

V. Stewart iii, 403 

Denys v. Shuckburgh iii. 398 



Depau v. Humphroys ii. 584, 585 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 387, 417 

De Pau V. Jones ii. 406 

De Peau v. Russell ii. 376 

Depeystei' v. Clarkson i. 1^2, 123 

u. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 385 

V. Sun Ins. Co. ii. 384,388,411 

Dipuy V. Swart i. 382 

Derby v. Johnson ii. 523 

V. Phelps ii. 64 ; iii. 36 

De Ridder v. McKnight i. 528 

V, Schermerhom i. 11 ; ii; 533 

De Rivafinoli v. Cor.sctti iii. 404 

De Eothschild v. R. M. Steam Packet 




Derwort v. Loomer 

ii. 219, 

220, 222 

Descadillas v. Harris 

ii. 624 

Descharms, ex parte 

iii. 508 

Desha v. Holland 

i. 167 

V. Pope 

iii. 263 

V. Sheppard 

i. 20.3 

Deshon v. Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 406, 408 

De Sobry v. De Laistre ii. 570 

Despatch Line v. Bellamy Man. Co. 

i. 52, 569 

De Sylva v. Henry 
De Tasted, ex parte 
De Tastet v. Baring 
V. Sharpe 
De Tastett v. Crousillat 
De Tollenere v. Fuller 
Deux V. Jefferies 
Devaux v. J' Anson 
De Vaux v. Salvador 

ii. 741, 742 

iii. 463, 464, 512 

i. 288 

iii. 509 

i. 86 

ii. 127 

ii. 713 

ii. 361, 376 

ii. 310, 326, 377 ; 

iii. 179 

Devaynes v. Noble i. 202 ; ii. 

Deverell v. Bolton iii. 

Deveron, The ii. 

Devin v. Harris i. 

Devlin v. Clark i. 

Devon v. Pawlett 
Devonshire v. Eglin 
Dewar v. Span 
Dewdney, ex parte 
Dewees v. Morgan 
Dewey v. Bell 

V. Field 

V. Humphrey 

V, OsboiTi 

V. Watson 
Dewint v. Wilste 
De Witt V. Morris 

u. The St. Lawrence 
V. Walton 
De Wolf V. Johnson 
V. MuiTay 
D'Wolf V. Harris 

V. N. Y. Ins. Co. 
Dexter v. The Richmond 
Dey V. Dox ii. 531 

I). Pouglikeepsie Ins. Co. 

iii. 372, 

iii. 457, 

ii. 794, 

ii. 637, 

iii. 114, 



Dezell V. Odell ii. 794, 796 

Deghetoft v. London Ass. Co. i. 224 

Diiis V. The Revenge ii. 334 

Dibbin v. Marquis of Anglesoa ii. 696 

Dibble v. Brown ii. 256 

V. Rogers ii. 797 

Diblin v. Murphy iii. 175 

Diehens v. N. Y. Cent. E. R. Co. ii. 230 

Dickcn, ex pnrte iii. 511 

Dickens v. Shepperd iii. 227 

Dickenson v. Lilwal i. 543; iii. 13 

V. Naule i. 112 

Dickerson v. Selyee ii. 290 

Dickey v. Am. Ins. Co. ii. 3R7 

w. Linscott ii. 38, 659 

V. United Ins. Co. ii. 367 

Dickinson v. Bayle iii. 182, 223 

V. Foilett i. 591 

V. Grand Junction Canal 

Co. iii. 218 

u. Hatfield iii. 69 

V. Legare i. 1 78 

V. Naule i. 132 

V. Shee ii. 642 

V. Survivors of Bolds and 

V. Valpy 
V, Winchester 
Dickson, ex parte 

V. Dickson 
V. Hammond 
V. Jordim 
u. Miller 
V. Thompson 
V. Zizinia 
Didier v. Davison 
Dietriclison v. Cabburn 
Dietterich v. Heft 
Ditferdorfer v. Jones 
Disby V. Atkinson 

i. 157 

i. 145, 147, 189 

ii. 150 

iii. 512 

ii. 595 

ii. 204 

i. 525, 58r 

i. 364 

iii. 62 

i. 590 

iii. 88, 89, 96 

■ iii. 412 

i. 122, 123, 135 

i. 510 

iii. 232 

Diggie V. London & Blackwall R. R. 
Co. i. 

Dilk V. Keighley 
Dill V. Soutb Carolina R. R. Co 

i. 314 
ii. 199, 
i. 576 
iii. 360,363 
iii. 103 
iii. 228 
708; iii. 378 
iii. 443, 454 
iii. 69, 81 
86, 89 

Dillard v. Moore ■ 
Dillon V. Coppin 
Dilworth v. Si'nderling 
Dimmick v. Lockwood 
Dirasdale v. Robertson 
Dinsman v. Bradley 
Diiismore v. Dinsmore 
Diplock IK Blackburn 
Directors B. & E. Ry. Co. v. Col- 
lins ii. 213 
Disborough v. Neilson ii. 6'j7 
Ditchhurn v. Goldsmith ii. 756 
DivoU V. Leadbetter ii. 798 
Dix V. Cobb i. 224, 226, 227, 228 
V. Otis i. 147 
Dixon V. Bell ii. 48 
V. Bovill 1. 248 



Dixon V. Broomfield 

iii. 10 

Doe V. Carew 

ii. 558 

V. Clark 


639, 640, 645 

V. Carpenter 

ii. 552 

u. Cyrus, The 

ii. 341, 346 

V. Carter i 

506 ; iii. 

492, 493 

V. Dixon 

ii. 624, 684 

v.^ Cartwright 

iii. 295 

V. Durham 

11. 191, 196 

V. Cataraore 


722, 723 

V. Green 

ii. 796 

V. Cawdor 

i. 503 

o. Hurreu 

i. 362 

V. Chamberlaine 

i. 514 

476, 493 

!). Jolinsou 

i. 278 

ii. Clarke 1. 506, 

514; iii. 

V. Myers 

i. 528 

u. Cooper 

i. 508 

V. Olmstead 

ii. 747 

V. Cox 

i. 514 

V. Ranl<ea 

ii. 43 

V. Cranstoun 

ii. 550 

t;, Sadler 


374, 406, 409 

V. Crick 

i. 514 

£>. yinclear 

ii. 733 

V. CutheU 

i. 514 

V. Stansfield 

i. 98 

V. Davis 

iii. 221 

V. Yates i. 526 

, 596, 

601, 606,608 

V. Day 

iii. 299 

Dixon's Ex'rs v. Rams 

ay's Ex'rs iii. 436 

V. Dixon 

ii. 506 

Doane o. Eddy 

iii. 471 

V. Dodd 


508, 513 

V. Russell 

iii. 237, 255 

u. Dunbar 

i. 515 

V. Willcutt 

ii. 790 

t. Eason 

ii. 533 

Dob ;■. Halsey 

i. 23, 185 

I'. Edgar 

ii. 798 

Dobell V. Hutchinson 

i. 494, 540 ; iii. 5 

V. Errington 

ii. 787 

V. Stevens 

ii. 778 

V. Evans i 

508, 514 

; iii. 335 

D'Obree, ex pane 

iii. 452, 504 

i>. Filliter 


164, 172 

I^obree v. Schroder 

ii. 3.34 

V. Fleming 

ii. 514 

Dobson !). CoUis 

iii. 38 

V. Ford 

ii. 790 

u. Land 

ii. 441 

V. Foster 

ii. 797 

V. Lockhart 

ii. 741 

!>. Frowd 


508, 514 

V. Pearce 

ii. 610 

V. Galloway 

i. 500; ii. 

550, 556 

I'. Sotlioby 


426, 427, 429 

V. Glenn 

i. 132 

Dockray v. Dockray 

iii. 426 

V. Goldsmith 

ii. 504 

V. Dunn 

i. 272, 448 

V. Gold win 

1.49, 514 

Dod V. Herring 

ii. 471 

V. Gooch 

iii. 140 

Dodd V. Ai-klom 

i. 509; ii. 798 

V. Gratton 

i. 514 

B. Seymour 

iii. 355 

V. Green 

i. 513 

Doddington v. Hallet 

ii. 266, 270 

y. Groves 

ii. 794 

Dodge V. Adams 

i. 435 

B. Grubb 

i. 508 

V. Bank of Kentucky 

i. 280 

0. Guy 

i. 127 

c. Burdell 

i. 429 ; ii. 6 

V. Hamilton 

i. 22 

a. Emerson 

i. 249 

u. Hare 

iii. 221 

V. Lean 

iii. 17 

V. Hawke 

i. 506 

V. Perkins 

i. 89 

; iii. 102, 104 

V. Heath 

i. 507 

V. Tllcston 

i. 99; iii. 192 

V. Hirst 

iii. 346 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii 

319,343, 396 

V. Hiscocks 

ii. 550, 

560, 564 

Dodgson V. Bell 

i. 344 

0. Hoare 

iii. 347 

Dodsley v. Varley 

iii. 41 

V. Home 

ii. 789 

Dodson ('. Harris 

ii. 759, 7fi.) 

V. Howells 

ii. 790 

c. Kayes 

ii. 512 

V. Hubbard 

ii. 552 

Dodsworth y. Jones 

iii. 256 

u. Huddart 

iii. 221 

Doe V. Ahcrnathy 

i. 321) 

I. Hughes 

i. 514 

V. Adams 

ii. 504 

r. Huime 



u. Allen 

ii. 558 

V. Jesson 

ii. 484 

V. Barnard 

iii. 109 

V. Johnston 

i. 515 

V. Barton 

i. 507 

, 508 ; ii. 797 

V. Lanibley 

ii. 800 

V. Baytup 

ii. 797 

0. Laming 

u. 145 

424, 494 

V Bevan 

iii. 493 

u. Lawder 

i. 514 

V. Beynon 

ii. 562 

u- Lock 

ii. 511 

V. Biggs 

ii. 514 

V. Long 

i. 508 

V. Birch 

i. 506, 507 

V. Lucas 

i. 515 

V. Bliss 

i. 506 

V. Martin 

i. 73 ; ii. 560 

t'. Bower 

ii. 552 

V. Meyrick 

ii. 502 

V. Brown 

L 508 

; iii. 108, 110 

V. Mills 

ii. 797 

u. Burt 


. 499 ; ii. 549 

V. Mitchell 

iii. 472 



I'. Moigau 

ii. 558, 559 

V. Needs 

ii. 558 

i>. Palmer 

ii. 723 

II. Parkin 

ii. 551 

V. Parry 

ii. 55U 

v. Pasquali 

i. 508, 514 

V. Pierce 

i. 514 

V. Pitclier 

i. 458 

V. Pittman 

i. 508 

V. Poole 

i. 509 ; ii. 798 

V. Porter 

i. 513 

V. Powell 

ii. 797 

V. Quigley 

1. 514 

V. Rces 

i. 506 

V. Richardson 

ii. 694 

V. Roberts 

i. 295 

V. Robinson 

i. 83, 84 

V. Rollings 

1. 514 

V. Salkeld 

ii. 504, 506, 555 

V. Saver 

i. 514 

V. Seaton 

ii. 787 

c<. Smith i. 514 ; ii. 661 ; iii. 491 

V. Smythe 1. 507 ; ii. 797 ; iii. 475 

V. Snaith iii. 343 

V. Sommersett i. 514 

0. Stagg iii. 346 

I' Stanion i. 508 

V. Taniere i. 470 

V. Thorp iii. 95 

V. Vardill ii. 599, 600 

V. Vickcrs ii. 798 

u. Walters i. 514 

u. Warren ii. 636 ; iii. 151, 152 

0. Watkins i. 515 

V. Watts i. 514 

V. Webster ii. 549 

V. Westlake ii. 559 

V. Weston iii. 328 

0. Whittick i. 508 

V. Wisigins ii. 797 

V. Williams ii. 506 

V. Wood i. 509 ; ii. 798 

1). Woodbridge i. 507 

Dogget V. Vowel! i. 446 

Doggett V. Emerson i. 579 ; ii. 786 

Doig V, Barkley iii. 1 52 

Dold V. Geiger i. 343 

Dole V. Gold i. 283 

u. Lincoln i. 235 

V. Stimpson i. 531 ; iii. 4! 

V. Weeks i. 242, 262 

Doloret v. Rothschild iii. 370 

Dolph V. White i. 467 ; iii. 186 

Dominick v. Michael iii. 384 

Dommett v. Bedford iii. 475, 493 

Don V. Lippman ii. 588, 591, 609 

Donahoe v. Emery iii. 228 

Donahue v. Cromartie i. 527 

Donaldson v. Benton ii. 622 

Donallen v. Lennox 'i. 456 

Donally v. Wilson ii. 634 

Donath v. Broomhead i. 601 

Dnnath v. K. A. Ins. Co. ii. 358 

Donnell v. Columbian Ins. Co. ii. 508, 639 
V. Donnell i. 235 

V. Jones iii. 172, 181, 184 

Donellan v. Read ii. 44 ; iii. 34, 38 

Donnelly r. Corbctt iii. 440, 441, 554 

Donelson v. Colerain ii. 739 

V. Pusey i. 203, 204 

Doner i'. Sf.iuffer i. 207 

Donley v. Camp ii. 29 

Donn i: Pints ii. 23 

Donnington v. Mitchell i. 341 

Doohm, In re iii. 3b8 

Doolittle /■. Malcom ii. 694, 695 

Dolubdass v. Ramloll i. 497 ; ii. 755, 

Doorman v. Jenkins i. 84, 447 ; ii. 90, 

92, 101 
Dorchester v, Coventry iii, 223 

i>. Webb ii. 715, 716 

& Milton Bank u. New 
England Bank i. 288 ; 

ii. 104, 539, 541 
Dorcmus i'. McCormick i. 185 

Dorian v. Sammis ii. 783 

Dornian v. Bigclow ii. 26 

Dormer v. Williams ii. 83 

Dorncr v. Knight ii. .501 

Dorothy Foster, The ii. 321 

Dorr V. N. J. Steam Nav. Co. ii..235, 
240", 248 
I'. Pacific Ins. Co. ii. 278 

V. Swartwout iii. 96, 98 

Dorsey v. Dorsey ii. 605 

V. Gassaway ii. 632 

V. Gilbert i. 134 

V. Goodi;now i. 363 

V. Jackman i. 574 

V. Rockwood i. 449 

* V. AVatson i. 271 

V. Wayman iii. 387 

Dorwin v. Potter iii. 1 78 

Doty 1'. Brown ii. 730, 732 

V. Mitchell i. 368 

V. Wilder iii. 12 

V. Wilson i. 472 

Doub V. Mason ii. 798 

Doubleday v. Muskett i. 145, 146 

Dougal !). Cowles i. 184 

Dougherty v. Van Nostrand i. 154 

V. Western Bank of Geor- 
gia i. 272 
Douglas, ex parte iii. 240 
V. Forrest iii. 90 
V. McAllister iii. 200 
K.Moody ii. 304, 318, 327 
V. Oldham ii. 589 
u. Patrick ii. 640, 641 
V. Scougal ii. 400 
V. Vincent ii. 72 ; iii. 30 
Douglass V. Elkins iii. 70 
V. Howland ii. 13, 29; iii. 16, 28 



Douglass V. fTnvor of New York ii. 579 
V. McChesney iii. 108, 109 

V. Reynolds 

ii. 30 

V. Spears 

iii. 9 

V. VVIiite 


619, 687 

V. Winslow 


204, 205 

Douville V. Sun Ins. Co. 

ii. 369 

Uove, Tire 

ii. 322 

Dover V. Maestair 

iii. 344 

Dow L'. Drew 

iii. 151 

l: Sayward 


209, 505 

u. Smith 



V. Tuttlo 

ii. 713 

Dowd V. Fauoett ii 


; iii. 221 

Dowdall V. Lenox 

iii. 108 

Dowdle V. Camp 

iii. 56 

Dowell V. Dew 


407, 410 

V. Gen. S. N. Co. 

ii. 3U9 

Dowler v. Garland 

ii. 728 

Dowley v. Camp 

ii. 29 

Dowling V. Ford 

iii. 84 

Dowman, ex parte 

iii. 505 

Down V. Hailing i. 


257, 261 

ti. Hatclier 

ii. 618 

V. Pinto 

ii. 34 

Downer v. Brackett iii. 


505, 514 

u. Dana 

iii. 473 

u. Garland 

ii. 728 

1'. Rowell 

ii. 135 

V. Shaw 

ii. 609 

V. Sinclair 

ii. 647 

V. Smith 

ii. 680 

Downes v. Back 

iii. 205 

u. Ricliardson 

iii. 307 

Downing r. Funk 

i. 442 

Downs ii. Collins iii. 


405, 413 

V. Cooper ii. 


793, 801 

V. Planters Bank 

i. 280 

«. Ross 

iii. 54 

Dows V. Cobb i. 289, 60" 

; 'i- 

185, 186, 

V. Greene i. 47, 48 

; iii. 263 

V. Morewood 

ii. 207 

Dowse V. Coxe 

ii. 712 

Dowset V. Sweet 

ii. 550 

Dowsland v. Thompson 

ii. 734 

Dowthwaite v. Tibbut 

iii. 62, 64 

Dox V. Dey 

iii. 105 

Doyle V. Callow 

iii. 381 

u. Jessup 

ii. 70 

V. Kiser 

ii. 256 

Doyley v. Burton 

ii. 690 

Draco, The 


281, 284 

Drake v. Beckham 

iii. 449 

V. Elwyn 


166, 189 

V. Mitchell 

ii. 716 

V. Mayor of Exeter 

iii. 479 

V. Mayor of Exon 

iii. 498 

V. Ramey 

i. 160 

V. Ramsey 


. 157, 326 

Drakely v. Deforest 

iii. 27 

Drant v. Brown 

iii. 295 

Draper v. Ch.arter Oak Ins. Co. ii. 422, 


V. Com. Ins. Co. ii. 407 

V. Glassop iii. 100 

V. Pattina iii. 9 

V. Romeyn ii. 27 

Draughan v. Buntin iii. 23 

Drayton u. Dale i. 264 ; iii. 502 

Drenncn v. House i. 158, 189 

Dresser v. Ainsworth i. 575 

V. Brooks iii. 433, 505 

V. Dresser i. 236 

Maniif. Co. V. Waterston iii. 200 

Drew V. Drew iii. 98 

V. Power iii. 108 

V. Towle i. 465 ; ii. 737 

V. Woolcock ii. 696 

Drewe v. Corp iii. 401 

V. Hanson i. 495 

Drexel v. Man iii. 221 

Driggs V. Dwight iii. 182, 230 

Drinkwater v. Goodwin i. 97 ; ii. 614, 

743 ; iii. 259, 260 

,j. The SpaiTOW ii. 287 

V. Tebbetts i. 277, 278 

Driscol V. Passmore ii. 403, 412 

Driscoll V. Bovil ii. 412 

Drue I). Thorne ii. 600 

Druid, The _ i._103 

Drummond o. Bmrell ii. 44 ; iii. 36 

... Hopper 1. 384 

V. Wood i. 94 

Drumright v. Philpot i. 110 

Drury v. Connor iii. 356, 393 

V. Dcfontaine i. 458 ; ii. 757 

V. Drury i. 331 

u. Hooke ii. 64 

V. Macale iii. 356 

V. Molins iii. 373 

('. Shumway iii. 226 

V. Smith i. 235 

V. Strong ii. 500 

Dry V. Davy ii. 5, 20 

Dry Dock Bank v. Amer. Life Ins. & 

Trust Co. iii. 109, 149, 15Q 

Drysdale v. Mace iii. 383, 414, 415 

Dublin V. Murphy iii. 176 

Dublin and Wicklow R. R. v. Black 

i. 325, 333 
Dubois' Appeal i. 116 

Dubois ex parte iii. 517, 518 

o. Del. and Hud. Canal Co. 

ii. 58, 679 
V. Kelly i. 511, 512; iii. 34 

Dubose V. Wbeddon i. 313 

Dubuisson v. Folkes ii. 25, 28 

Duchess de Brabant, The ii. 334 

Duchess of Kingston's Case ii. 729 

DuchQss Co. I'. Davis ii. 799 

Duck V. BraddjU iii. 329 

Duckett V. Williams ii. 470 

Duckworth v. Alison ii. 737 



Pudgeon v. Toass ii. 128 

Dundas v, Dandaa 

ii. 571 

Dudley v. Mallery ii. 689, 690 ; iii. 374 

1). Dutens 

ii. 72 

V. Nettlcfbld ii. 699 

Dundee, The 

ii. 334 

V. Robins iii. 341 

Dunham v. Dodpe 

iii. 82 

V. Smith ii. 222, 226 

V. Gould 

iii. 1,50 

V. Wnrde i. 513 

V. Pettee 

ii. 532 

Dufaur v. Professional Life Aas. Co. ii. 477 

V. Rogers 

1. 160 

Dufl' V. Budd ii. 210, 242, 244, 252 

Dunklee v. Pales 

' iii. 513 

V. The East India Co. V 61 5 

V. Lawrence '.'.. 304 

Duffee I'. Mason i. 581 

Duffell V. Wilson ii. 360 

Duffie V. Hayes ii. 303 

Duffield V. Creed iii. 61 

Duffill V. Spottiswoode iii. 296 

Diifolt V. Gorman ii. 207 

Dufour V. Morse i. 279 

Dufrene, ex parte iii. 457 

Duffy V. Ins. Co. i. 370 

Dugan V. Gittings iii. 95, 392, 416 

Duguot V. Rhinelander ii. 358 

Duhring v. Duhring 1. 150 

Duignan v. Wallier ii. 750 

Duke of Beaufort v. Neeld i. 41 

Duke of Bedford, The ii. 283, 284 

Dorset v. Lord Hawarden ii. 550 
Duke of Manchaster, The ii. 348 

Norfolk V. Worthy i. 62, 494, 539 
Northumberland v. Erring- 
ton ii. 502, 513 
St. Albans v. Shore ii. 531, 532 
Dula V. Cowles ii. 520 
Dulaney v. The Peragio ii. 318 
Dulles c. De Forest ii. 633 
Dulty V. Brownfield i. 321, 330 
Dumaresly v. Pishly ii 596 
Dumas v. Jones ii. 370 
Dumper v. Symms i. 138 
Dunbar v. Brown ii. 29 
V. McFall ii. 767 
V. Tredennick i. 86 
17. Williams i. 409; ii. 41 
Dunbarr v. Bonesteel . ii. 775 
Duncan v. Benson ii. 284 
V. Bloomstock ii. 735 
V. Cafe ii. 628 
V. Clark i. 184 
V. Course i. 286 
V. Crannan ii. 583 
V. Duncan ii. 692 
t;. Hodges ii. 724 
V. Kock ii. 391 
V. Maryland Savings Institu- 
tion iii. 130, 134 
v.McCullough i. 271, 384; iii. 417 
V. R.iilroad Co. ii. 127 
V. Sun Ins. Co. ii. 361, 397, 422, 
V. Torabeckbee Bank i. 187 
V. Topham i. 484, 485 
Duncomb v. Tickridge i. 311 
Duncuft V. Albrecht i. 492; iii. 50, 369, 370 

u. Greenfield Steam Mills Co. 

i. 227 

V. Locke i. 116; ii. 56, 736 

Dunkley v. Farris i. 74 

Dunlap V. Hales i. 324 

V. Higgins iii. 198 

V. Hunting ii. 652 

V. Thompson "i. 281 

Dunlop V. Gregory ii. 753 

o. Grote iii. 210 

V. Higgins i. 483, 485 ; iii. 206 

V. Munroe ii. 144 

V. Waugh i. 580 

Dunman v. Strother ii. 756 

Dunn V. Murray ii. 699 

V. Sayles ii. 44 

V. Slee i. 34 

V. Smith i. 265 

V. Snoll i. 228, 229 

o. Sparks iii. 507 

V. Wade i. 36 

V. West ii. 701 ; iii. 22 

Dunnage v. Joliffee ii. 191 

Dunnell c. Mason i. 92 

Dunne v. Ferguson iii. 32 

Dunning v. Chamberlain iii. 96 

V. Merrill iii. 120 

Dunscomb v. Dunscomb i. 123 

Dunseth v. Bank of United States iii. 223 

u. Com. Ins. Co. ii. 363 

Dupeyre v. Western Ins. Co. ii. 375, 408 

Dupleix V. De Roven ii 589 

Dupont de Nemours v. Vance ii. 302, 328 

Duport V. Wildgoose ii. 692 

Durand v. Carrington ii. 728 

u. Thurou ii. 443 

Durant v. Titley 1. 359 

Durden v. Hammond iii. 335 

Durell V. Wendell i. 28 

Durham v. Arledge ii. 10 

V. Manrow iii. 26 

u. Price i. 271 

V. Wadlington i. 438 

Durnford v. Lane i. 452 

Durrell v. Bcderly ii. 403 

V. Evans i. 551 

Durrum c. Hendrick i. 270 

Duryeas v. Whitcomb i. 163 

Dusar v. Murgatroyd ii. 334 

Dusenberry v. Ellis i. 65, 69 

Dutchess Co. v. Davis ii. 799 

Dutton V. Gerrish i. 588 

V. Hutchinson iii. 89 

V. Morrison i. 199, 211 ; iii. 48£ 



Button c. Toolo i. 465, 468 ; iii. 

V. Solomonson i. 533 ; iii. 

t: TilJcn ii- 

Duvall ;;. Crnip; 

V. rarmers Bank i. 271, 343 ; 

V. Farmers Bank of Maryland 


Dwight V. Blac'kmar i 

V. Brewster ii. 168, 

V. Eraertion i. 2j6, 

II. Newell i. 

u. Poa^e i. 

Pwpiiy V. United Ins. Co. ii- 

Dvvyer v. Edie ii. 

Dye a. Kerr i- 

Dyer v. Burnham i 

u. Cady ii. 

i'. Clark i. 149, 151; iii. 

V. Corrington 

i>. Dorsey 

V. Har^rave 

v. Hunt ii. 

V. Lewis ii. 

V. Pearson ii. 

V. Rich ii. 

Dvkers 1-. Allen ii. 118, 

Dykes v. Blake i. 493, 495, 

u. Leather M. Bank i. 

Dyott V. Lotehor iii 

Dyster, ex parte iii. 


5.') 5 
. 64 

. 88 

. 47 
. 65 
. 90 


Eaden v. Titchmarsh i. 11 

Eads V. H. D. Uacon, The ii. 322 

V. Williams ii. 707 

Eager v. Atli.-: Ins. Co. ii. 395 

V. The Commonwealth iii. 95 

Eaglet). White ii. 183, 199 

Eagle Bank i: Cluipin i. 282 

V. Smith i. 262, 264; ii. 622 

Eagle Fire Co. c. Lent i. 328 

Eaglcson r. Sliotwell iii. 109 

Eaken v. Thorn ii. 341 

Eames, ex parte iii. 446 

Eardlcy v. Price ii. 41 

Earl of Bedford v. Bishop of Exeter ii. 725 

Bristol V. Wilsmore i. 527 ; ii. 7'2 

Buckinghamsliire v. Driiry i. 331, 


Chesterfield v. Janssen iii. 138 

Falmouth v. Thomas iii. 33 

Litchfield, in re iii. 465, 468, 4C9 

Mansfield v. Ogle iii. 140 

: Shrewsbury v. Gould ii. 508 

Earlu. Shaw ii. 354, 412 

V. Stocker ii. 695 

Earle v. Dickson iii. 99 

V. Harris ii. 400 

V. Peale i. 298, 352 

Earle v. Reed 

y. Rowcroft 
Early v. Garrett 
Earnest v. P.arke 
East V. 

i. 313 
ii. 379 

i. 591 
i. 434 
ii. 309 

i. 138 

ii. 529 
ii. 339 

East Can-cr Co. v. Manuf. Ins. Co. ii. 369 
Eastern Counties Railway Co. 

Eastern Counties Railway Co. 

Eastern Star, The 
Eastern Union R. R. Co. v. Cochrane ii. 17 
East Haddam Bank o. Scovil i. 85; ii. 104 
East Hartford u. Hartford Bridge 

Company iii. 353 

East India Co., ex parte iii. 505 

V. Henchman i. 87 

u. Ilensley i. 41 

t>. ]-*rince iii. 62 

V. Pullen ii. 176 

V. Vincent ii. 796 

Eastman v. Coos Bank i. 113 

V. Foster iii. 512 

V. McAlpin iii. 426 

t: Wright i. 226; ii. 715 

iii. 368 

i. 520 

i. .530 

iii. 20, 


iii. 78 

122; iii. 131, 151 

ii. 48 

iii. 467 

ii. 619 

ii. 494 

i. 261 

ii. 493 

iii. 392 

ii. 319, 398 

i. 459 

Easton Bank v. Commonwealth 

V. Worthiugton 
Eastwood V. Brown 

V. Kcnyon i. 435, 436 

V. Saville 
Eaton V. Bell 

u. Benton 

V. Jaques 

V. Lincoln 

V. Lyon 

I'. Jii Kown 

I'. Smith 

V. Wliitaker 
Ehenezer, The 
Eherman v. Reitzell 
Ehert's Executors r. Ebert's Admin- 

Ecdcston ('. Clipsham 
Edan r. Dudficld 
Eddie p. Davidson 
Eddowes r. Hopkins 
Eddy i\ Hcri'in 
Edclen o. Gough 
Ivleii f. Parkiii.son 
Edes V. Hamilton Ins. Co. 
Edgar v. Blick 

t'. Boies 
Edgell c. Hart 

t. McLaughlin 

y. Stanford 
Edger v. Knapp 
Edgcrly v. Emerson 
Edgerton v. Clark 
Edick V. Crim 
Edie V. India Co 
Ediuboro Acad. v. Dobinson 

ii. 698 

i. 14 

ii. 638 

i. 207 

iii. 104 

i. 393 

iii. 16, 28 

ii. 398 

ii. 451, 452 

iii. 295 

ii. 529 ; iii. 215 

i. 572 

ii. 756 

iii. 116 

1. 32, 35 

ii. 6 

iii. 220 

i. 575 

i. 252 ; ii. 543 

i. 452 



Edington v. Pickle 

ii. 740 

Ellis V. Bury 

ii. 509 

Edmands v. Mutual Ins. Co. 

ii. 4.t1 

Edmiston v. Wrin-ht 

iii. 192 

Edmond v. Caldwell 

ii. 6'24 

Edmonsoa v. Davis 

i. 185 

V. Dyson 

i. 336 

i\ Stephenson 

ii. 44 

Edmunds !'. Do\vncs 

iii. 71 

Edson V. Fuller i 

2G7, 445 

Edwards, ex parte iii. 460, 

463, 4G5 

V. Baltimore Ins. Co. 

ii. 462 

V. Barrow 

ii. 472 

V. Bangh 

i. 442 

V. Beaird 

iii. 276 

V. Brewer i 

598, 601 

V. Burt 

i. 436 

u. Chapman 

ii. 680 

V. Child 

ii. 338 

V. Coleman 

iii. 469 

V. Davis 

i. 312 

V. Etherington i 

501, 589 

V. Eootner i. 74 ; ii. 403, 404 
V. Goldsmith ii. 493, 553 

V. Grand Junction Railway 

Co. iii. 359 

ij. Great Western R. U. 

i. 78 


V. Harben 

V. Hodding 

V. Kelly 

V. Martin 

t>. McFall 

V. McLeay 

V. Owen 

V. Parkhurst 

V. R. E. Stockton, The 

(■. Sherratt ii. 

V, Skirving 

V. St. Louis Ins. Co. 

V. Temple 

V. Todd 

V. Towels 

V. Varick 

V. Williams 
Edwin, The 
Eeles, in re 

Egan V. Mut. F. Ins. Co. ii. 

Efjherts v. Wood i. 

Egerton v. Eurzcman 

u. Mathews 
Egleston v. Knickerbacker 
Egremont v. Langdon 
Ehle V. Judson 
V. Purdy 
Ehringhaus v. Ford 
Eichelberger v. Barnitz 
Eicke V. Nokes 
Eisdell V. Coninghara 
Ekins V. East India Co 

V. Marklish 
Ela V. Card 

li. 174, 175 

i. 530 


iii. 28 

iii. 226 

i. 168 

iii. 415 

ii. 770 

ii. 767 

ii. 314 

174, 2U3 

iii. 120 

ii, 369 

ii. 742 

ii. 294 

i. 354 

ii. 790 

iii. 162 

ii. 290 

iii. 461 

422, 432 

178, 212 

ii. 756 

iii. 9, 15 

ii. 555 

ii. 797 

i. 435 

i. 11 

iii. 109 

ii. 776 

iii. 71 

iii. 270 

ii. 586 

i. 94 

i. 365 


Elam V. Carruth 

1. 52 

Eland v. Karr 

ii. 742 

Elbers v. United Ins. Co. 

ii. 358 

Elder, ex parte 

iii. 517 

. V. True 


226, 228 

V. Warfield 

ii. 7 

Elderkin v. Elderkin 

iii. 469 

Elderton v. Emmens 


. 45, 668 

Eldrcd 1-. Hawcs 

i. 272 

EUlridge v. Benson 

i. 520 

V. Long Island R. R 

. Cc 

. ii. 222 

V. Rowe 


. 33, 526 

V. Wadleigh 

i. 575 

Elephanta, The 

ii. 283 

Elfe V. Gadsden 

iii. 12 

Elford V. Teed 

i. 280 

Elgar, ex parte 

iii. 505 

V. Watson 

ii. 639 

Eliason ;;. Hensliaw i 


484; ii. 351 

Eliott V. Giese 

iii. 16 

V. Gurr 

ii. 597 

V. Minott 

iii. 103 

V. Thomas 

iii. 44 

Eliver v. Beste 

iii. 455 

Eli Whitnev, The 

ii. 300 

Elizabeth, the 


318, 398 

V. Rickers 

ii. 341 

& Jane, The 


323, 341 

Eliza Jane, The 

ii. 262 

Elkin v. Janson 


402, 405 

V. Moore 

iii. 103 

Elkington o. Holland 

i. 114 

Elkins V. Boston & Maine E. 


ii. 163, 


V. Parkhurst i. 



652, 655 

Ellen !>. Topp 

ii. 52 

Ellersliaw v. Magniao 



; ii. 292 

Ellciy V. Cunningham 

iii. 104 

V. New Eng. Ins 


ii. 376 

Ellicott V. Alliance Ins. 



386, 391 

V. Martin 

i. 242 

V. Nichols 

iii. 66 

u. Peterson 

iii. 38 

Elliot V. Bradley 

i. 98 

;;. Collier 

i. 341 

v. Cooper 

i. 248 

V. Danby 

iii. 472 

V. Davis 


110, 112 

u. Hamilton Ins. 



424, 434 

V. Wilson 

ii. 411 

Elliott V. Bishop 

i. 510 

V. Bradbury 

iii. 259 

V. Cordell 

iii. 482 

V. Giese 


6; iii. 16 

V. Gurr 


. 81, 597 

V. Horn 

i. 316 

V. Minott 

iii-. 103 

V. Rossell 

ii. 169 

V. Sleeper 

ii. 625 

u. Smith 

i. .508 

u. Swartwout 

i. 79 

V. Thomas 

iii. 44 

VOL. I. 



Ellis, ex parte iii. 520 

■„. Brown i. 243 

V. Clunnock iii. 212 

u. Commercial Bank i. 270, 274 
V. Essex Merrimack Bridge i. 134 

V. Hamlen i. 464 ; ii. 36, 524 

V. Hiffgins i. 459 

V. Hunt i. 534, 603 

«. James ii. 207 

t>. Nimmo iii. 363 

f. Paige i. 514; ii. 661 

V. Sclimoeck i. 146 
V. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co. 

i. 105 

V. Thompson i. 539 ; ii. 535, 661 

V. Turner i. 103 

V. Warnes iii. 120 

V. Wild i. 265 

V. Willard ii. 292, 297 

Ellison V. Chapman i. 164 

V. Collingridge i. 249; iii. 316 

V. Elli.son iii. 360 

V. Elwin iii. 482 

Ellsworth V. Tartt i. 157 

Elmendorf v. Harris ii. 706 

Elmore v. Kingscote iii. 14 

V. Naugatack R. E. Co. i. 690 

V. Stone i. 531 ; iii. 41, 42 

Elsee V. Gatward ii, 103 

Eltham u. Kingsman 1. 70; ii. 627 

Elting V. Scott ii. 404 

V. Vanderlyn i. 441 

Elton, ex parte i. 21 1 

!;. Brogden i. 591 ; ii. 379 

V. Jordan i. .'j9 1 

V. Larkins ii. 771 

Elwell Grove, The ii. 320 

Elwes V. Maw i, 012 

Ely V. Ely ii. 723 

V. McClung iii. 108 

Elysville Manuf. Co. v Okiska Co. i. 139 ; 

iii. 279 

Emancipation, The ii. 282 

Emanuel v. Bird i. 212 

Emblem, The ii. 320, 32 1 

Emblin v. Dartnell i. 272 

Embree v. Hanna ii. 607 

Emdin v. Darley ii. 736 

Emerick v. Sunders iii. 23 

Emerson v. I5aylies ii. 738 

11. Hrigliam i. 588 

V. Harmon i. 182 

V. Howhmd ii. 34, 344 

f. Kiiower i. 186 

V. Partridge ii. 583 

V. Slater ii. 555 ; iii. 26 

Emery v. Chase i. 4,30 

u. Emery i. 353 ; ii. 697 

V. Horsey ii. 183, 212, 335 

V. Hitchcock ii. 692 

V. Kempton i. 309 

t). Neighbour i, 362 

Emery v. Owings ii. 704, 707 

V. Wase ii. 697 ; iii. 413 

Emes V. Widowson ii. 685 

Emily, The ii. 311 

& Caroline, The iii. 287 

Emlv V. Lye i. 173, 181 

Eminnnuel, The ii. 398 

Einmens v. Elderton ii. 33 

Emmerson v. Heelis i. 113, 495; iii. 


Emmett v. Norton i. 44, 48, 352, 361 

V. Tottenham i. 241 

Emmons v. Lntletield i. 430 

u. Lord ii. 42 

Emmott V. Kearns i. 443 

Emory v. Givciiough ii. 606; iii. 442,443 

Empson ;;. Soden i. 512 
Emulous, Schooner and Cargo i. 391 ; 

ii. 316 

Ender v. Scott i. 581 

Enderbev v. Gilpin iii. 143 

Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford 

& New Haven R. R. Co. iii. 536, 538 

England u. Curling iii. 366 

I'. Davison ii. 694 

English i). Blundell i. 11, 14, 23 

V. Harvey i. 122, 123 

Enicks V. Powell i. 36 

Ennis v. Waller iii. 12 

Eno V. Crooke i. 230 

Ensminger v. JNIarvin i. 182 

Enterprise, The ii. 338 

Entlioven v. Hoyle iii. 348 

Entwistle o. Ellis ii. 354, 368 

Entz u. .Mills iii. 12 

Enys V. Donnithorne i. 12, 15, 31 
Episcopal Charitable Society v. 

Episcopal Church i. 139 

Eplcr V. Funk i. 263 

Epley V. Witherow ii. 796 

Eppes V. Tucker ii. 325 

Epps V. Hinds ii. 149 

Erie Bank n. Gibson ii. 23 

Ernst V. Bartle i. 12 

Errington p. Aynesly iii. 369 

Erskine v. Pluinmer iii. 33 

Erwiu V. Bank of Kentucky i. 530 

V. Blake i. 118; ii. 614 

u. Maxwell i. 581 

I . Parham iii. 361 

i. y.iuuJers i. 381 ; ii. 554 

Esdaile v. La N:\uze i. 42 

Eskridge v. Glover i. 476 

Esmay v. Fanning ii. 128 

Esposito I'. Bowden ii. 305 

Ess p. Truscott i. 83 

E^scx Co. u. Edwards i. 243, 245 

Estis ". Rawlins iii, 96 

Estwick V. Caillaud iii. 426 

Etiieridge «. Biuney i. 181 

Etherington v. l-'arrot i. 347, 349, 353 

Etting f. bclmylkill Bank i. 269 



Eubanks v. Peak 
Eugenie ». Preval 
Europa, The 
Evans v. Ashley 

V. Bell 

V. Birch 

V. Bremmer 

V. The Charles 

V. Davies 

V. Drummond 

V. Eaton 

V. Evans 

V. Harris 

V. Button 

V. Jones 

V. Kennedy 

V. Keeland 

V. Llewellyn 

V. Mann 

V. Marlett 

V. Montgomery 

V. Negley 

V. Powis 

V. Pratt 

V. Prosser 

V. Roberts 

t). Sanders 

V. Soule 

V. Spriggs 

V. Tweedy 

V. Underwood 

V. Walshe 

V. Wells 
Evansville, &e. E. B. Co. 

Eve V. Moseley 
Evelyn v. Chichester 

V. Radish 
Everard v. Watson 
Everett v. Collins 

V. Desborough 

V. Stone 
Everitt v. Chapman 

Evemghim v. Ensworth 
Evei'son v. Carpenter 
Everth v. Hannam 
Evertson v. Tappen 
Ewart u. Nagel 

V. Stark 

V. Street 
Ewbank v. Nutting 
Ewen V. Terry 
Ewer V. Coffin 
V. Jones 

V. Washington Ins. 
Ewers v. Hutton 
Ewin, in re 
Ewing V. Bailey 

V. Blount 

V. Ewing 

i. 330 

Ewing V. French 

ii. 133 


V. Osbaldiston 

i. 156 

ii. 312 

V. Tees 

i. 47 

iii. 12 

Exall V. Partridge 


. 11,470 

ii. 767 

Exeter Bank v. Gordon 

ii. 110 

ii. 48 

V. Rogers 

ii. 16 

i. 242 

V. Sullivan 

iii. 83 

ii. 318 

Exeter, The 

ii. 283 

iii. 76 

Exon V. Russell 


272, 273 

1. 168, 170 

Exposito V. Bowden 

ii. 673 

iii. 350 

Exton V. Scott 

iii. 360 

i. 65, 357 

Eyles V. Ellis 

ii. 625 

i. 531 

Eyre, ex parte 



ii. 295 

V. Bank of England 

iii. 512 

ii. 756 

V. Glover 


359, 362 

i. 401 

V. Jackson 

iii. 468 

ii. 8 

V. Marine Ins. Co. 


366, 536 

i. 493 

iii. 470 


ii. 290 

iii. 376 

Fabens v. Mercantile Bank i 

. 70 ; ii. 104 

iii. 107 

Fackler v. Fackler 

iii. 99 

ii. 683 

Fahnestock v. Bailey 

i. 94 

ii. 536 

Fahy v. North 

ii. 38 

ii. 742 

Fair v. M'lver 

iii. 515 

iu. 32, 33 

Fairburn v. Eastwood 

iii. 491 

ii. 505 

Fairchild v. Cal. Stage Co. 


225 ; iii. 

ii. 239 


iii. 443 

V. Holly 


632, 633 

iii. 69 

V. Slocum 

ii. 213 

i. 249 

Fairclough v. Pavia 

i. 242 

iii. 368 

Fairfax v. Hunter 

i. 397 

i. 55 

Fairlee v. Herring 

i. 267 

V. Lowder- 

Fairlie, ex parte 

iii. 506 

iii. 178 

Fairtitle v. Gilbert 

ii. 789 

ii. 686 

Faithorne v. Blaquire 

i. 36C 

i. 334 

Falconer v. Moutgi.mei7 

ii. 705 

iii. 232 

Fales V. Russel 

i. 292 

i. 283 

Falkland v. Cheney 

i. 192 

u. 623 

Falkner v. Case 

iii. 272 

i. 60; ii. 471, 

Fall River Iron Works v. Croade 

iii. 455, 

472, 771 



iii. 424 

Union Bank Co. u 


i. 156, 157, 161, 


i. 192 


Wh. Co. V. Border 

i. 148 

i. 185 ; ii. 739 

Falmouth i;. Roberts 

ii. 719 

i. 324, 382 

Fallowes v. Taylor 


ii. 378 

Falls V. Gaither 


475, 484 

i. 122 

Falton V. Hood 

ii. 773 

i. 366 

Fame v. Dawson 

ii. 340 

ii. 151 

Fannin v. Anderson 

iii. 98 

ii. 160 

Fanning v. Chadwick 


164, 165 

ii. 319 

V. Consequa 


583, 586 

ii. 735 

V. Dunham 


126, 149 

ii. 612 

Fanny, The 

ii. 263 

i. 127 

Fanny & Elmira, The 

ii. 276 

Co. a. 352, 354 

Fanton v. Fairfield Co. Bank 

i. 230 


Farebrother v. Ansley 


ii. 571 

V. Simmons 

iii 11 

ii. 664 

Fariel v. Eastcourt 

i 99 

ui. 196, 198 

Farina v. Hone 

iii. 43 

i. 432 

Faiis V. King 

iu. 117 



Faris V. Newlniryport Ins. Co. ii. 36.3 

Parish V. Roii;le ii. 220, 22-t 

Failie u. Cliristie ii. 354 

Farloiv, ex parte i. 21 1 

Farmer v. Francis ii. 59 

V. Loss ii- 3"5 

V. Si'wall iii. 144, 147 

0. Stewart i. 444 ; ii. 706 

Farmers Bank v. Bowie i 2?3 

V. Diivall i. 269, 280 

V. McKee iii. 201 

V. lliiynolds ii. 2.";, 26 

u. Waplcs i. 277 

Farmers & ^rcclianics Banli v. Cham- 
plain Trans Co. ii. 182, 187, 
190, 214, 217, 237, 240, 2+4 
V. Kerclicval ii. 13, 18, 23, 29 
I'. Planters Bank, iii. 89 

l: Rathbone i. 257 

<,.. Smith iii. 439, 442 

V. Wilson iii. 85 

Farmers Ins. Co. v. Snyilcr ii. 422, 423 
Farmers Loan Co. a. Walworth i. 52 

Fanui[igton Academy v. Allen i. 454 ; 

ii. 46 
Farnham !'. Gilman 
Farnsworth i'. Garrard 
V. Shepard 
V. Storrs 
Farnum v. Perry 
I^arri worth v. Packwood 
Fai-(iuliar, ex parte 

Farr r. Poarce 
V. Sumner 
Farrand v. Bouchell 
Farrar v. Adams 

u. Alston 

t-. Beswick 
Fnrrell v. French 

V. Hi.!,'lej 
Farrer u. Granard 

V Niglitingal 
Farrinjjton c. Lee 

V. Payne 
Farrow v. Rcsposs 

/■. Turner 

iii. 507 

i. 464; ii. 740 

i. 530 

i. 423 

i. 526 

ii. 148 

iii. 504 

i. 154 

i. 321 

iii. 175 

ii. 162, 202 

ii. 772, 773 

i. 157 

ii. 344 

ii. 794 

i. 367 

i. 492, 522 

iii. 87, 89 

Ii. 620 ; iii. 469 

ii. 29 

i. 468 

Farewell v. Boston & Worcester R. R. 

Co. ii. 43 

V. Ro^'ers ii. 664 

Fash !'. Ross i. 64 

Fassett V. Trahcr iii. 426 

Fan;;ier o. Hallctt ii. 416 

Fauliler v. Silk i. 387 

Faulkner v. Delaware & Huron Canal 

Co. iii. 97 

V. Lowe ii. 673 

V. Wright ii. 161 

FauU V. Tiiisman i. 227 

Fauntleroy's Case 1. 185 

Favenc v. Bcrmett ii. 614 

Faviell v. Eastern Counties Ry, Co. i. 117 ; 

ii. 703 

Favor v. Fillirick 

ii. 183 

Fawcett v. Cash 

ii. 32 

V. Whitehouse 

i. 166 

Faucns v. S n>ficld 

ii, 410 

Faxon v. Manstield 

ii. 36 

Fay u. Bradley 

ii. 035 

V. Howe 

i. 123 

V, Junes 

i. 230 

V. Steamer New World 

ii. 223 

Fayle v. Bird 

i. 272 

Feai-n v. Lewis 

iii. 66 

Featherstonaugh v. Fenwick 

i. 202 

Feaubert v. Turst 

ii. 599 

Feeter u. Heath 

i. 64, 69 

Feiglcr u. Sponeberger 

i. 180 

Feiso V. iVguilar 

ii. 369,370 

ti. Parkinson 

ii. 360, 404 

f. Randall 

iii. 524 

V. Wray i. 

600; iii. 245 

Feleh v. Bugbeo 

iii. 441 

Felichy v. Hamilton 

i. 177 

Felker v. Emerson 

i. 347 

Fall V. Goslin 

i. 12 

V. Knight 

ii. 150 

Fellowes v. Gordon 

ii. 105. 107 

I/. Lord Gwyder iii. 354, 364 

Fellows I'. Fellows ii. 605 

V. Mitchell i. 29 

V. Prentiss ii. 22 

V. Wyman i. 194 

Fells V. Read iii. 375 

Felt f. School District ii. 131 

Felton V. Dickinson i. 468 

V. Fuller i. 526 

Fcnby v. Pritchard i. 259 

Fenly r. Stewart i. 55 ; iii. 10 

Fenn v. Harrison i. 60, 65, 241 

Fennell r. Ridler ii. 758, 765 

Fenner v. Duplock i. 508 ; ii. 797 

V. Taylor i. 368 

Fenno v. Sayre iii. 118 

Fenton r. Browne i. 492 

V. Clark ii. 38, 40, 659 

V. Dublin Steam Packet Co. i. 105 

u. Emblers iii. 37, 90 

u. Holloway i. 384 

c. Reed ii. 76, 77 

V. White i. 313 

Fontnm v. Pocock i. 257 ; iii. 495 

Fenwick v. Chapman i.417 

V. Sears iii. 436 

Ferchy v. Gordon i. 579 

Fereday !•. Hordern iii. 143 

Feret u. Hill ii. 771 

Ferguson v. i. 503; ii. 127 

V. Bell i. 325 

V. Cappeau iii. 254 

V. Carrington ii. 772, 781 

V. Lothrop ii. 738 

V. INIahoa ii. 606 

V. Oliver i. 592 

1/. I'orter i. 81 ; ii. 107 



Ferguson v. Thomas 
V. Tucker 
Fergusson i: Fyflf'e 

V. Norman 
Ferrall v. Shaen 

i. 571 

ii. 53 

ii. 686 

i. 458 ; iii. 245 

iii. 115,117 

Fen-ara, v. Tallent, The ii. 342 

Ferris v. Saxton i. 280 

Ferry :;. Ferry ii. 636 ; iii. 152 

Ferson !>. Monroe i. 204, 214 

Fetty place v. Dutch iii. 513 

Fewings v. Tisdall ii. 34, 41 

Fidgeon v. Sharpe iii. 485, 486 

Fiedler v. New York Ins. Co. ii. 385, 386, 


Field V. Boland iii. 409, 410 

V. Chase ii. 304 

V. Dickinson iii. 98 

V. Field i. 142 

II. Holland ii. 632 

V. Maghee i. 225 

tj. Mayor, &c., of New York ii. 620 

V. Nickerson i. 236 

V. Rank iii. 44 

V. Sdiieffelm i. 134 

V. Simco i. 530 

V. Wood iii. 340, 341 

Fielder v. Starkin i. 591 

Fielding v. Day iii. 300 

V. Kymer i. 93 

V. Mills iii. 248, 235 

Fields V. Mallett i. 274 

V. The State i. 399 

Figcs V. Cutter i. 156 

Figgins V. Ward i- 187 

Filby V. Lawford iii. 506 

Fildes V. Hooker iu. 379, 401, 407 

Filer v. Peebles ii. 48 

Files V. McLcod iii- 26 

Filley v. Phelps i- 204 

Fillieul V. Armstrong ii. 35 

Fillvan «. Laverty' i- 202 

Fillmer v. Delber i. 117 ; ii. 689 

V. Gott i. 430 

Filson V. Himes i. 380 

Finchw. Brook ii. 642, 643 

V. Brown iii. '83 

V. Finch i. 304, 307 

Finch's Case ii- 513 

Findlay w. Smith i. 122, 123 

Fiudon, ex parte iii- 506 

!). Parker ii- 766 

Fink t). Hake ii-.738 

Finney v. Bedford Comm. Ins. Co. i. 55 

V. Fairhaven Ins. Co. i. 49 ; ii. 

353, 359 

V. Warren Ins. Co. ii. 363, 405 

Finnucane v. Small ii- 125 

Fire Ins. Co. v. Loomis i. 496 

Fireman's Ins. Co. o. Crandall ii. 461 

V. Powell ii. 368 

First Massachusetts Turnpike Corp. 

V. Field iii- 99 

Fish V. Chapman ii. 159, 160, 166, 235, 


V. Cushman i. 370 

V. Dodge i. 108; iii. 166 

u. Kemptou ii. 743 

V. Tank i. 586 

V. Thomas ii. 280 

Fisher «. Beasley iii. 123 

V. Clisbee ii. 169 

V. Cutter ii. 5, 10 

V. Currier iii- 524 

V. Ellis i. 454 

V. Evans i. 275 

V. Johnson iii. 280 

V. Kay iii. 230 

V. Lane ii. 588 

j7. Leland i. 256 

V. May i. 438 

I'. MilWr iii. 261 

V. Morris Canal & B. Co. i. 291 

V. Mowbray i. 313 

V. Murray i. 179 

V. Prince iii. 206 

V. Pyne i- 474 

V. Salmon i. 256; ii. 15 

V. Seltzer i. 479 

V. Shattuck i. 393, 395 

V. Tayler i. 181 

V. Waltham ii. 755 

Fishmonger's Company v. Eobert- 

son i. 450, 470 ; ii. 532 

Fishwick v. Milnes iii- 295 

Fisk V. Comm. Ins. Co. ii. 375 

V. Copeland i. 187 

V. Cusliraan ii. 72 

V. Herrick i. 206 

u. Mastcrman ii- 359 

V. Newton ii. 183, 296 

Fiske II. Foster iii. 442 

Fitch V. Hiimlin iii. 1 13 

V. Jones i. 243, 290 ; ii. 720 

V. Livingston ii. 311 ; iii. 183 

V. Newbury ii. 209 ; iii. 2'i2, 253 

V. Peckham ii. 47 

V. Reading i. 2oO, 270 

V. Sutton i. 222; ii. 618 

Fits V. Cook ii. 798 

Fitt V. Cassanet ii. 678, 680 

Fitts !••. Hall i. 317,320 

Fitzgerald v. Lord Portarlington iii- 359 

V. Reed i. 384 

II. Vicars iii. 335 

Fitzherbert v. Mather i 60, 73, 74 ; ii- 404 

V. Shaw i- 513 

Fitzhugh V. Wilcox i. 386 

Fitzpatrick i<. School Comm. i. 205 

Fitzroy v. Gwillim ii. 747 ; iii. 127, 273 

Fitzsimmons v. Joslin i. 61, 73, 595; ii. 

779, 780 
Fivaz V. Nichols ii. "46 

Flad Oyen, The ll- ^^^ 

Flagg V. Dryden ii. 649 



riagg V. Mann ii. 525 

V. Millbury ii. 760 

Planders v, Barstow i. 569 

V. Clarke i. 132 

V. Crolius ii. U 

Flanigen v. Wash. Ins. Co. ii. 406 

V. Turner ii. 794 

Flarty v. Odium i. 225 

Fluckuer v. U. S. Bank i. 49 ; iii. 118, 134 

Fleece, The ii. 319 

Fleetwood v. Green iii. 379 

i;. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. i. .395 

Fleming v. Gilbert ii. 555 

I). Gooding i. 507 ; ii. 797 

V. Hayne i. 381, 382 

V. Potter ii. 651 

V. Slocum ii. 777 

V. Smith ii. 385 

Flemington v. Smithers iii. 167 

Flemyng v. Hector i. 41, 48, 145 

Fletcher v. Bowsher i. 591 ; ii. 273 

u. Braddick ii. 302, 310 

V. Button ii. 657 ; iii. 229, 230, 


V. Cole i. 531 

V. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 

ii. 433, 434, 437, 441, 777 

i;. Daingerfield i. 113 

V. Davis iii. 521 

V. Dyche ii. 737 ; iii. 1 58, 1 64 

V. Fletcher iii. 360 

V. Grover i. 32 

V. Gushee i. 254 

V. Harcot ii. 746 

V. Howard i. 529 

V. Inglis ii. 376 

V. Jackson i. 34, 3.i 

V. Mbrey iii. 468 

u. Peck iii. 527, 548 

V. Pynsett ii. 671 

V. Webster ii. 693 

Flewellin v. Eave ii. 110 

Flight V. Bolland iii. 9, 408 

V. Booth i. 540 

V. Leman ii. 766 

V. McLean i. 246 

Flindt V. Waters ii. 360 

Flinn v. Ilcadlam ii. 402, 403 

Flint V. Brandon iii. 353, 364, 371 

V. Clark ii. 494 

V. Day i. 243 

V. Flemyng ii. 361 

V. Ohio "Ins. Co. ii. 350, 420 

J;. Pattee i. 237 

0. Rogers i. 266 

i>. Woodin i. 496 

Flint River Steamboat Co. u. Roberts 

ii. 271 
Flintum, ex parte i. 211 

Flood V. Finlay iii. 474, 479, 498 

Flook V. Jones iii 486 

Florence, The ii. 317 

Flory V. Denny i. 569; ii. 119 

Flower, ex parte iii. 468 

u. Young ii. 275 

Floyer v. Edwards iii. 108, 117, 125, 133, 


V. Sherard i. 436; iii. 139 

Fluck V. ToUemache i. 300 

Flureau v. ThornhiU iii. 229 

Flynn v. Williams ii. 782 

Foard v. Womack i. 270 

Fobes V. Cantfleld iii. 151 

Foden v. Sharp i. 272 ; ii. 586 

Fogg V. Johnston i. 203 

V. Middlesex Ins. Co. ii. 3.54, 355 

0. Sawyer i. 265 ; ii. 622 

Foggart V. Blackweller i. 581 

Foland v. Boyd i. 284 

Foley V. Addenbrooke i. 14, 16, 23 

V. CovvgiU ii. 778 

V. Mason i. 526 ; ii. 547, 643 

V. Moline ii. 405 

V. Robards i. 182 

Folsom V. Belknap Co. Ins. Co. ii. 354 

V, Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 36.3, 411 

Foltz V. aicy iii. 118 

Fonda v. Van Home i. 295 

Fontaine v. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 336 

u. Phoenix Ins. Co. ii. 277, 386, 


Fooks V. Waples ii. 775 

Foorde v. Hoskins i. 119 

Foot V. N. H. & Northampton Co. iii. 34 

V. Tewksbury i. 384; iii. 269 

Foote V. Burnet i. 129 ; iii. 226, 228 

V. Emerson ii. 747 ; iii. 36 

V. Sabin i. 186 

V. Storrs ii. 125, 139, 143 

Foquet v. Moor i. 455 

Forbes v. Apploton i. 406 

V. Aspinall ii. 359, 370 

V. Church ii. 358 

V. Davison i. 176 

V, Foot iii. 99 

V. Hannah, The ii. 281 

u. Manuf. Ins. Co. ii. 381, 387, 388 

V. Parker i. 570, 571 

V. Parsons ii. 345 

V. Phipps iii. 481 

V. Skeltoa iii. 88 

Ford V. Adams i. 220 

o. Bronaugh i. 13 

u. Ford ii. 599 

t. Jones ii. 707 

V. Monroe i. 312 

V. Phillips 1. 323, 324 

V. Relimau i. 441 

V. Stuart i, 229; iii. 354, 361 

o. Tiiey ii. 666, 667, 675 

V. Webb iii. 457 

K. Williams iii. 425, 426 

V. Yates ii. 514 

Forde v. Herron i, 153 



Fordley's Case ii. 642 

ForKvet v. Moore i. 380 

Foi-kiier D. Stuart i. 179 

Foreman v. Hardwick ii. 757 

V. Jays iii. 310 

Forman v. Marsh 1. 135 

V. Wulker i. 42 

Fornshill v. Murray ii. 596 

Forquet v. Moore iii. 33 

Forrest, The ii. 342 

Forrest v. Elwes iii. 1 1 1 

V. Warrington iii. 481 

F )n-estier v. Boardman i. 81, 94 

Forsaith v. Clogston ii. 731 

Forshaw v. Chabert ii. 354, 406 ; iii. 323 

Forster v. Fuller i. 64, 128, 136, 431 

V. Hale iii. 17, 59, 387 

V. Surtees iii. 509 

V. Taylor i. 11 

V. Wilson iii. 483, 515 

Forsyth v. Day ii. 799 

u. Milne i. 302 

V. Nash i. 403, 4(14 

Forsythe v. Ellis i. 574 

Fort V. Cortes i. 270 

Fortescue v. Barnett ii. 482 ; iii. 360 

V. Hannah iii. 407 

Forth V. Simpson ii. 207 

Fortitude, Tlie i. 78 ; ii. 276, 284, 333 

Forward v. Pittard ii. 141, 158, 159, 161 

V. Thamer L 416 

Fosgate v. Allen i. 1 1 

Foshay ;■. Ferguson i. 394 

Foss V. Crisp i. 397 

V. Wagner iii. 343 

Foster, ex parte i. 224 ; iii. 275, 457, 475, 


Foster, In re iii. 506 

V. Bates i. 49, 131 

V. Caldwell i. 581 

V. Charles ii. 774 

V. Dawber iii. 74 

V. Equitable Ins. Co. ii. 355, 452 

V. Essex Bank i. 102, 139 ; ii. 

V, Frampton i. 604 

V. Hall iii. 281 

V. Hilliard i. 135 

V. Hodgson iii. 89 

V. Hooper i. 30 

V, Hudson iii. 475 

V. Jack iii. 93 

V. Jackson ii. 735 

V. Jolly ii. 5.54 

V. Julien i. 272 

V. McDivit ii. 732 

V. McO'Blenis ii. 38 
V. Mentor Life Ins. Co. ii. 484 

t!. Miranda, The ii. 311 

V. Paulk i. 261 

V. Pettibone ii. 134 

B. Peyser i. 589 

Foster v. Pugh 

i. 530 

V. Eemick 

iii. 5i7 

V. Saco Manuf. Co. 

iii. 426 

V. Sampson 

ii. 342 

V. Schoffiold 

ii. 70 

V. Sincath 

i. 280 

V. Stewart 

ii. 52 

V. Swasey 

i. 584 

V. Trull 

ii. 685 

V. V. S. Ins. Co. ii 268, 352, 353, 

359, 443 

V. Wilmer . ii. 412 

Fothergill v. FothergiU iii. 374 

V. Walton ii. 532 

Foubert v. Turst iii. 355 

Fouldes V. Willoughby ii. 126 

Foulkes V. Sellway ii. 65 

Fountain u. Grymes iii. 139 

Fournier v. Faggott iii. 166 

Fourth School District in Rumford 

V. Wood i. 139 

Fowke V. Bowie ii. 630, 631 

Fowle V. Freeman iii. 9 

V. Harrington i. 194 

Fowler v. iEtna Ins. Co. ii. 423 

V. Bott i. 504, 505 

V. Brooks ii. 18 

u. Down iii. 467, 490 

V. Garlike ii. 558 

V. Garret iii. 121 

V. Gilman iii. 196 

!'. HoUenbeck ii. 50 

V, Hunt iii. 95 

D. Kymer i. 606 

V. Ludwig ii. 624 

V. Morrill iii. 269 

V. Poling i. 232 

V. Richardson i. 194 

V. Shearer i. 365; ii. 791 

V. Stuart i. 432 
Fowles u. Great Western Railway 

Co. ii. 217 

FoxB. Abel ii. 763 

V. Adams iii. 455, 481 

V. Clifton i. 144, 145, 189 

V. Fisk iii. 89 

V. Glastenbury ii. 233 

V. Hanbury i. 199, 207 

V. Harding iii. 185 

V. Mackreth i. 87, 579; iii. 465 

V. McGregor ii. 156, 207, 237 ; iii. 250 

V, Mensch ii. 759 

u. Smith ii. 690, 694, 698, 699 

C-. Southack i. 397 

V. Wilcocks i. 123 

Foxcroft !!. Devonshire iii. 260 

Foxcroft Academy f. Favor i. 452 

Fraley v. Bispham i. 582 

Frame v. Dawson iii. 60, 393, 394, 395 

Franchot i\ Leach iii 232 

Frances, The i. 98 

Francis n. Dod.sworth ii. 742 



Francis v. Felrait 

i. 315 

Freestone v. Butcher 

i. 343 

V. Francis 

iii. 270 

Freemoult v. Dediro i 

. 599 

; iii. 282 

V, Ocean Ins. Co. 

ii. 405, 461 

Freer v. Hesse 

iii. 380 

V. Wigzell 

iii. 413 

Fi-emo V. Wright 

iii. 379 

Franco v. Bolton 

iii. 508 

French v. Andrade 

iii. 515 

Francois v. Lobrano 

i. 400 

V. Backhouse 


268. 3.-.3 

Frank v. Edwards 

ii. 17 

French v. Carr iii 


475, 480 

Frankland v. Nicholson 

ii. 83 

V. Chase 

i. 206 

Franklin v. Beatty 

i. 434, 435 

V. French 


218, 220 

V. Ezell 

i. 58, 60, 74 

V. Grindle 


144, 147 

V. Lord Brownlow 

iii. 408 

V. Kennedy 

ii. b.-J5 

V. Miller i. 463 

; ii. 532, 679 

I}. Macule iii. 


351, 37-; 

V. Neate 1 

226; ii. 118 

V. New 

ii. 7U0 

V. Osgood 

iii. 422 

V. Patton 


297, 3i' S 

V. Vanderpool 

ii. 624 

V. Price 

ii. 266 

Franklin, The 

i. 200 

V. Reed 

ii. 100 

Franklin Bank v. Cooper 

ii. 8 

i;. Styring 

i. 165 

V. Hooper 

ii. 629 

Frentrcss v. Markle 

ii. 681 

Franklin Ins. Co. u. Coates 

ii. 4.34, 44.3, 

Freto V. Brown 


309, 310 


Freundschaft, The 

i. 200 

V. Hewitt 

ii. 350 

Frey o. Kirk 

iii. 440 

B. Lord 

ii. 285 

Frichette v. State Ins. Co. 

ii. 376 

Franklyn v. Lamoud 

i. 64, 497 

Fricker v. Thomlinson 

iii. 6 

u. Tuton 

iii. 376 

Fridge v. The State 

i. 295 

Franks, ex parte i. 366 , 

iii. 455, 462 

Friedly v. Sc-licetz 

i. 574 

Frary v. Frary 

ii. 601, 605 

Friend v. Woods 


158, 161 

Fraser v. Berkeley 

iii. 178 

Frink u. King 

ii. 272 

I'. Hopkins 

ii. 275 

V. Potter 

ii. 220 

V. Pigott 

ii. 501 

Frisbee, iit re 

iii. 473 

Fraternal Ins, Co. v. Applegate ii. 481 

Frisbie v. Fayette Ins. Co. 

ii. 4a3 

Frazer v. Bunn 

ii. 631 

(>. Earned 

ii. 625 

u. Gcrvais 

ii. 776 

■J. McCarty 

i. 432 

0. Hilliard 

1. 603 

Frissel !•. Haile 

iii. 270 

V. Mareh 

ii. 182 

Frith 0. Barker 


289, 294 

Frazier v. Dick 

i. 285 

V. Sprague 

i. 33 

V. Rowan 

i. 315 

Frizzle v. Veach 

ii. 767 

Freake v. Cranefeldt 

iii. 69 

Fromont v. Coupland i 


165; ii. 

Freakcley c. Fox 

ii. 715 

213, 229 

Frear v. Evertson 

ii. 452 

Frontier Bank ». Morse 


; ii. 622 

V. Hardenbergh i. 434 

,446; iii. :U 

Frontin v. Small 

. 62, 140 

Fredd v. Evez 

i. 353 

Frost V. Bengough 

iii. 62, 69 

Frederick v. Coxwell 

iii. 405, 413 

V. Brisbin 

ii. 580 

Free v. Hawkins 

i. 277 

V. Carter 

iii. 507 

Freeborn v. Denman 

ii. 710, 712 

' V. Hill 

iii. 12 

Freeman v. Baker i. 591 ; ii. 

288, 343, 774 

V, Jolmson 

ii. 681 

v. Baldwin 

i. 569 

1-. Kellogg 

i. 16.J 

V. Baspoule 

ii. 691, 694 

V. Lowry 

ii. 781 

V. Boynton 

i. 437 

V. Saratoga Ins. Co. 

ii. 4:!0 

V. Briuin 

iii. 118, 147 

V. Willis 


354, 361 

(J. Buckingham 

ii. 290 

Frothiughara v. Everton i. 

ro, 86, 98,99; 

V. Cashart 

i. 188 


190, 219 

V. Chute 

i. 593 

u. Haley 

ii. 690 

D. Clute 

iii. 183, 211 

V. Jenkins 

ii. 2'.):5 

11. Cooke ii. 

793, 794, 795 

Fry V. Evans 

ii. 7:i8 

u. East India Co. 

ii. 319, 336 

V. Hill 

i. SCii 

V. Fenton 

i. 381 

V. Rousseau 

i. 248 

V. Free man 

ii. 605 

Fry:;tt i). Tlie Sullivan Ca 


128, l.-ii; 

t'. Hyett 

ii. 735 

Frye V. Barker 


. 81, 116 

V. Perry 

i. 227 

V. Shepler 

iii. 392 

f. Rosher 

i. 51 

Fryer v. Roe 

iii. 90 

V. Taylor 

ii. 286 

Fulham i>. Down 

i. 166 

Freemans Bank ;;. Rollins 

. 285; ii. 26 

Fullam u. Valentine 

ii. 27 



Fuller, er parte iii. 467, 475 

V. Abbott i. 458 

V. Abrahams i. 497 

V. Bennett i. 75, 76 

V. Boston Ins. Co. ii. 455 

V. Bradley ii. 207 

V. Browu ii. 38, 659 

V. Crittenden ii. 555 

V. Dame ii. 755 

V. Penwick ii. 703 

V. Hodgdon ii. 772 

0. Jocelyn i. 72 

V. Kennebec Ins. Co. ii. 385 

V. Little ii. 643 

V. McDonald i. 277 

V. Jl'Call ii. 390 

V. Milford ii. 26 

u. Naugatuck Railroad Co. ii. 219, 


V. Russell ii. 365 

V. Smith i. 262 

V. Wilson 1. 74 ; ii. 780 

o. Wright ii. 739 

Fuller's Case iii. 140 

Fullerton v. Sturges i. 242 

Fulton's Case ii. 724 

Fulton V. Shaw i. 400 

Bank v. Beach iii. 1 26 

... N. Y. & S. Canal 

Co. i. 78 

V. Phoenix Bank i. 261 

Funk's Lessee v. Kincaid i. 507 

Furber v. Carter i. 158 

Furillio v. Crowther i. 312 

Furlong v. Hysom i. 347 

V. Polleys iii. 176 

Funnan v. Elmore iii. 226 

V. Haskin i. 259 

Furneaux v, Bradley ii. 367 

Fumes v. Smith i. 318 

Furnis 0. Hallon ii. 694, 697 

Furniss v. Gilchrist i. 254 

V. Magoun, The ii. 283 

Furnival v. Crew i. 500 ; iii. 368 

». Weston i. 186; ii. 715 

Furser v. Prowd ii. 697 

V. Furtado ii. 360 

Furze v. Sherwood i. 283 

Fussel V. Daniel iii. 1.34 

Fusselman v. Worthington i. 507 

Fussil V. Brookes iii. 117 

Futrell V. Vann ii. 50 

Fyson v. Kitton iii. 5 


Gabay v. Lloyd 
Gabriel v. Dresser 
Gaby ». Griver 
Gaffield v. Hapgood 
Gage V. Gage 

ii. 541, 544 
ii. 683 
i. 497 
i. 512 
1. Ill 

G.alm V. Niemcewicz ii. 285 

Gaillard w. Le Seigneur iii. 118 

Gaillon v. L'Aigle i. 95 

Gnils V. The Osceola i. 220 

Gaines v. McKinley i. 60 

Gainsford v. Carroll iii. 206 

17. Grammar iii. 62 

Gairdner v. Senhouse ii. 414 
Gaither v. Farmers & Mechanics 

Bank 111.116,118 

V. Myrick ii. 415 

Galbraith v. Gedge i. 1 50 

1). Neville ii. 6tii 

Galbreath v. Galbrcath iii. 393 

Gale I'. Capem iii. 86 

V. Eastman iii. 1 14 

u. Half knight iii. 460 

V. Kemper's Heirs i. 272 

V. Laurie ii. 334, 361 

V. Leckie i. 164 

V. Lindo ii. 73 

V. Mottram ii. 690 

V. Nixon iii. 4 

V. Parrott i. 310 

V. Reed ii. 749 

V. Walsh i. 286 

V. W.ard i. 512 

V. Wells i. 136 

Galena & Chicago Union R. R. Co. 

V. Yarwood ii. 231 

Gall V. Comber i. 92 ; ii. 1 1 
Gallagher v. Fayette Co. R. R. Co. 

iii. 353 

c. Waring i. 585 

Gallaher v. Thompson ii. 56 
Gallego V. Gallego i. 343 ; iii. 481 

Gallini V. Laboiie ii. 747 

Galloway v. Hughes ii. 296 

V. Webb ii. 697 

Galpin V. Hard i. 270 

Galsworthy v. Strutt iii. 160, 162 

Gait's Ex'rs v. Swain i. 452 

Galusha v. Cobleigh iii. 98 

Galvin V. Thompson ii. 690 

Galway v. Matthew i. 180 

Gamble v. Grimes i. 456 

Gambling v. Read i, 537 

Gambril v. Rose iii. 1 1 7 

Game v. Harvie ii. 100 
Games v. Manning i. 272 ; ii. 651, 653 

Gammell v. Skinner iii. 103 
Gammon v. Chandler ii. 56 ; iii. 271 

V. Freeman ii. 554 

a. Howe iii. 164 

Gamwell v. Merch. Ins. Co. ii. 434 

Gandell v. Pontigny ii. 34, 41 
Ganguere's Estate, in re i. 386; ii. 761 

Gannard v. Eslava i. 236 

Gansevoort v. Williams i. 184 

Garbutt V. Watson iii. 54 

Gardiner !■. Cliilds i. 174 

«. Davis ii. 614 



Gardiner v. Griiy 

i. 583 

Gaston v. Frankum 


379, 413 

V. Hopkins 

ii. 11 

Gates V. Madison Co. 



ii. ^22, 

u. Shannon 

iii. 510 



434, 43« 

0. Walsli 

ii. 718 

Gaters ?- Madeley 

i. 343 

Gardner, ex parte 

iii. 517 

Gatehill's Case 

i. 142 

V. Adams 

i. 226 

Gathings i\ Williams 

ii. 597 

V. Allen 

ii. 743 

Gatlifife v. Bourne 

ii. 195 

t'. Bailie 

i. 42 

u. Hose 

iii. 374 

V. Bibbins 

ii. 345 

Gaulden v. McPhaul 

iii. 172 

V. Buckbee 

ii. 729 

Gaunt V. Hill 

i. 478 

V. Col. Ins. Co, 

ii. 366 


Gaussen r. Moiton 

i. 69, 72 

u. Flagg 


116, 125 

Gayford v. Nicholls 

i. 92 

e. Gardner 

i. 112, 

348, 368 

Gaylord v. Gaylord 

ii. 696 

V. Giout 

iii. 44 

Gavner v. Wilkin.son 

iii. 481 

V. Heartt 

i. 109 

Gaielle, The 



V. Hopkins 

ii. 7 

Gazinsky ct ux. u. Colburn 

i. 20 

V. Howland 

i. 533 ; ii. 275 

Gazley v. Price 


532, 657 

ii. Joy 

iii. 54^55 

Gazram u. Ohio Ins. Co. 

ii. 412 

V. McCutcheon 

i. 100 

Geach v. Ingall 

ii. 467 

V. JI'Mahon 

iii. 69, 71 

Geary o. Physic 

iii. 9 

0. New Jersey, 


ii. 341 

Gcddes V. Pennington 

ii. 769 

V. Nolen 

ii. 757 

Geo V Pcar,=o 


383, 387 

V, Kowe 

iii. 479 

Geer v. Archer 

i. 435 

V. Salvador 

ii. 385 

t.-. Putnam 

ii. 759 

u. Watson 

ii. 26 

Geiger v. Green 

iii. 411 

Gardom, ex parte 

i. 186 ; iii. 14 

Gcill V. Jeremy 

i 282 

Garland, ex parte 

i. 201 

Gci.^cr r. Kershner 

ii 618 

V. Chambers 

i. 530 

Gelley v. Clerk 

ii. 154 

I.. Noble 

ii. 691 

Gelston v. Hoyt 

ii. 789 

Garlick v. Ward 

ii. 755 

Gem, ex parte 

iii. 460 

Garment v. Barrs 

i. 591 

Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. v. 


ii. 377; 

Garmons v. Swift 


304, 347 

iii. 179 

Garnett v. Macon 

ii. 713 

iii. 380, 

Gen. Steam Nav. Co. 



ii. 309 


V. Rolt 

ii. 18 

V. Willan 

ii. 242, 

244, 252 

V. Tonkin 

ii. 309 

V. Woodcock 

i. 266 

General Smith, The 



261, 2C4 

Garnier v. Poydras 

ii. 600 

Worth, The v. Hopkins 

ii. 272 

Garrard v. Grinling 

iii. 389 

Gennings v. Lake 

i. 499 

y. Hardcy 

i. 144 

Gentleman, The 


302, 396 

V. Zacliariah 

ii. 653 

George v. Clagett i. 62 ; ii 


744, 795 

Garrolls v. Kensington 

ii. 399 

Dean, The 

ii. 320 

Garret v. Malone 

i. 448 

V. Elliott 

ii. 129 

V. Taylor 

i. 24 

; ii. 616 

V. Gillespie 

ii. 729 

Garrett v. Fo"ot 


116, 138 

V. Hariis 


452, 454 

V. Handley 

i. 62 

Home, The 

i. 391 

V. Malone 

iii. 34 

V. Johnson 

ii. 777 

Garrigues v. Coxo 


308, 365 

!'. Skeates 

ii. 271 

Garrison v. Memphis Ins 


ii. 307 


ii. 343 

GaiTon u. Galbriiith 

ii. 416 

B. Van Horn 

ii. 71 

Garrow v. Carpenter 

ii 742 

Gcralopulo r. Wider 

i. 287 

Garside u. Trent & Mei 

sey Naviga- | 

Gerhard v. ]5ates 

ii. 780 


ii". 140, 

213, 216 

Germain v. The Indiana 

ii. 271 

Gascoyne v. Smith 

i. 260 

Gcrmaine v. Burton 

i. 592 

Guskavth tj. Lowther 

iii. 410 

German Mining Co. in re 

i. 203 

Gaskell u. King 

i. 45.^ 

Gervais v. Edwards 


404, 410 

V. Alorris 

iii. 209 

GctihcU V. Clark 

iii. 269 

Gaskill V. Dudley 

i. 142 

0. Hcald 

iii. 81 

Gaslight Co. I'. Turner 

ii. 746 

Getber v. Capper 

i. 477 

Gasque v. Small 

i. 437 

Getty V. Rountree 

i. 5.t7 

Gass V. Stinson 

ii. 633 

V. Shearer 

ii. 724 

Gassett v, Godfrey 

i. 533 ; ii. 570 | 

Gheen !'. Oshorn 

i. 514 

v. Grout 

iii. 481 1 

Gibbons v. Buisson 

ii. 305 



Gibbes v. Mitcliell 
Gibbins v. Phillips 
Gibbon v. Baddall 
V. Paynton 
Gibbs V. Bi-yant 

V. Chisholm 
V. Frcemont 
V. Gray 
o. Merrill 
V. Potter 
Gibson v. Bell 

V. Boyd , 
V. Bruce 

ii. 736 

iii. 486 

iii. 278 

Ii. 254 

iii. 103 

iii. 152, 153 

1. 276 ; iii. 105 

ii. 297, 298 

i. 329 

ii. 334 

iii. 483, 514 

ii. 110 

iii. 524 

V. Can-uthers i. 595 ; iii. 469, 473, 


V. Colt i. 60 

V. Cooke i. 219, 222 

V. Connor i. 259 

iu. Courthorpe iii. 491 

u. Culver ii. 183, 187 

i;. Dickie ii. 73 

d. East India Co. i. 139 

V. Gibson ii. 713 

V. Goldsmid iii. 352 

V. Ingo ii. 33+ 

V. King iii. 460 

V. Livesey iii. 1 34 

V. Love i. 530 

V. Lupton i. 12, 188 

V. Minet i. 220 ; ii. 495 

V. Moore i. 164 

V. Overbury ii. 482 

u. Powell ii. 695 

V. Small ii. 406 

V. Spurrier i. 495 

V. Stearns iii. 120, 128 

V. Stevens i. 208 ; iii. 44 

.;. "Wells i. 503 

V. Winter i. 27 ; ii. 617 

Giddens v. Byers i. 54 

Giddings v. Coleman i. 219 

Gilford, ex parte 1. 36, 286 

V. Allen ii. 27 

a. Whitaker ii. 683 

Gihon V. Fryatt ii. 736 

Gilbach's Appeal i. 316 

Gilbert v. Danforth ii. 650 

V. Dennis i. 271, 283 

V. Hebard iii- 459 

u. Lynes i. 312 

V. N. Amer. Ins. Co. ii. 461 

V. Schwencle i. 137 

V. Sykes ii. 756 ; iii. 38 

V. Whidden i. 176 

D. Wiman ii. 186, 187 

Gilbertson v. Richardson iii. 182 

Gilby V. Singleton i. 188 

Gilchrist v. Leonard ii- 735 

V. McGee ii- 797 

V. Williams ii. 742 

Gildart v. Gladstone ii. 507 

Giles u. Ackles i. 441 

Giles V. Cynthia, The 
V. Eagle Ins. Co. 
V. Grovor 
f . Hart 
V. O'Toole 

ii. 340 

ii. 326, 327 

ii. 95 

ii. 637, 638 

iii. 182, 183 

V. Perkins 1. 531 ; iii. 495 

Gilfert v. Hallet ii. 414 

Gilham v. Locke iii. 503 

Gilhoolcy V. Washington i. 508 

Gilkyson v. Larue iii. 66 

Gill V. Cole iii. 2:0 

V. Cubitt i. 254 

V. Kulm i. 168 

V. Kymer iii. 2-12 

V. McAttee iii. 355 

V. Sliellcy ii. 501 

Gillespie v. Battle iii. 35 

u. Creswell iii. 91 

V. Edmonston i. 484 

V. Forsyth ii. 407, 408 

V. Hamilton i. 200 

u. Hannahan i. 274 

I/. Moon iii. 397 

i: Thompson ii. 296 

Gillett, ex parte iii. 479 

V. Averill i. 270 

V. Fairchild i. 223 

V. Ellis ii. 202, 318, 327 

V. Hill i. 527 

V. Mawman ii. 131- 

V. Phelps ii. 771 

V. Rippon i. 33 

Gillighan v. Bo.irdman ii. 6 ; iii. 16 

Gillingham v. Gillingham iii, 66, 85 

V. Wa^kett ii. 740 

Gillis V. Bailey i. 84 

Oilman v. Brown iii. 277, 280 

V. Cutts iii. 98 

V. Hall ii. 40, 559 

V. Kibler i. 441 ; iii. 16 

V. Moore ii. 647, 651 

V. Peck i. 265 ; ii- 622 

Gilmore u. Black i. 154 

V. Bussey ii. 624 

(.-. Carman ii. 161 

V. Holt ii. 643, 646 

V. Spies i. 274, 275 

Gilpin V. Enderby i. 159, 166 

K. Temple i. 156, 158, 175 

Gilpins V. Consequa i. 461, 534; ii. 672 ; 

iii. 206 

Gilreath v. Allen iii. 172 

Girard v. Taggart i. 534 ; ii. 209 

Girand v. Richmond iii. 06 

Girod V. Lewis i. 414 

Gisbourn v. Hurst ii. 163 

Gist V. Lybrand i. 271 

Gittings V. Mahew i. 452 

Givens u. Manns i. 416 

d. Calder iu. 390, 392 

Glaister v. Hewer ii. 736 

Gladding v. Constant ii. 338 



Glaholra V. Hays ii. 288, 527 

Glaholmc v. Rowntree iii. 244 

GUinfield, ex parte iii. 457 

Glnscoi'k V. Glascock iii. 282 

Glasfurd r. Laing iii. 1 28 

Gla^now V. Sands i. 341 

Glasgow, Tiie ii. 276 

Glasscock V. Smitla i. 1U4 

Glas.^cutt V. Day ii. 642, 644 

Gtas^ington v. Rawlins ii. 6G4 

GlazL'l)rook v. Woodrow iii. 232 

Gleason v. Dodd ii. 611 

r. Dyke i. 472 

Gl?ini r. Bolraont, The ii. 263 

Glen V. Lewis ii. 42(1 

Glen Cove Mat. Ins. Co. v, HaiTold i. 430 
Glcndalo Woollen Co. u, Protcclion 

Ins. Co. ii. 401, 425, 430 

Glcndeniiing, ex parte i. 286 

Glenn v. Gill i. 160, 204 

I'. McCuUougli iii. 62 

Glezen v. Rood iii. 219 

Glory, The ii. 319 

Gloucester Bank v. Salem Bank i. 265 ; 

ii. 623 

Gloucester Ins. Co. u. Younger ii. 387 

Glossop V. Colman i. 24 

Glover V. Austin ii. 259, 266 

u. Barrie ii. 697 

V. Glover i. 136 

V. Ott i. 297 

I'. Proprietors of DruryLane i. 345 

Glynn v. Baker i. 291 

Goatc 0. Goate iii. 71 

Godts V. Rose i. 547 ; iii. 44 

Gober V. Gober i. 401, 403 

Goblet V. Beechey ii, 556 

Gobu V. Gobu i. 403 

Godard t\ Benjamin ii. 618 

Goddard v. Cox ii. 630, 631 

V. Hodges i. 164; ii. 631 

u. Ingram iii. 84 

V. Merchants Bank i. 264 

V. Pratt i. 1 68 

V. Tangier, The ii. 2'Jii 

V. Vanderheyden iii. 507 

Godcfroy c. Dalton i. 144 

Godfrey v. Forrest ii. 743 

?'. Furzo i. 533; iii. 482 

Godiu V. Lond. Ass. Co. i. 98; iii. 244, 

V. Royal Ass. Co, ii. 372 

Gocde Hope, The ii. 360 

Gocselc V. Brlmcler i. 147 

Golf !,■. Clinkard ii. 171 

!■. Rehoboth ii. 639; iii. 103 

Goicoechea v. La. State Ins. Co. ii. 397, 


Goings !'. JliUs ii, 618 

Goix V. Knox ii. 374, 376 

V. Low ii. 374, 517, 608; iii. 295 

V. National Ins. Co. ii. 356 

Golden V. Manning 

V. Prince 
Colder v. Ogden 
Gold Hunter, The 
Goldney, ex parte 
Goldshorough «. Orr 
Goldsbury r. May 
Goldshede 0. Swan 
Goldstone v. Osborn 
Goliglitly V. Jellicoe 
Gomez V. Garr 
Gompertz v. Bartlett 
V. Denton 
Gondalier, The 
Gonzales v. Minor 
V. Sladea 
Gooch ?'. Bryant 
Good V. Checsman 

v. Elliott 

V. Good 

V. JMylin 
Goodall's Case 
Goodall, ex parte 

V. Marshall 

Ti. 183 

iii. 436, 549 

i. 528 

ii. 287 

iii. 475 

ii. 529 

i. 530 

ii. 563; iii. 16 

ii. 708 

ii. 699 

ii. 690 

i. 262 

i. 593 

ii. 338 

ii. 337 

i, 95 

ii. 722 

ii. 682, 683 

ii. 755 

ii. 745 

iii. 165 

ii. 515 

iii. 479 

iii. 455 

V. New England Ins. Co. ii. 442, 


V. Richardson ii, 110 

V. Polhill i. 287 

V. Thnrman ii. 69, 70 

Goodburn v. Stevens i. 149, 151 

Goode V. Harrison i, 314 

V. Jones i, 243 

V. McCartney i, 160 

I', Waters ii. 696 

Goodenow r. Buttrick ii. 735, 736 

f. Dunn i. 571 

V. Tyler i. 95 

Gooding i'. Morgan ii. 624 

Goodinge v. Goodinge ii. 562 

Gu(idis,>un r. Nunn iii. 232 

Goodlead w. Blewith ii. 640 

Goodloe V. Clay iii. 103 

I'. Rogers iii. 185 

Goodman, ex parte iii. 512 

V. Chase iii. 23 

V. Griffin ii, 25 

V. Harvey i. 255 ; ii. 88 

V. Kennell i. 102 

!'. I'ocock ii. 34, 41, 523 

r. White i. 184 

Goodnow V. Smith i. 186 ; ii. 687 

Goodrich v. Downs iii. 448 

V. Gordon i. 267 

V. Jones i. 511 

V. Lafflin ii. 678 

V. Norris ii. 290 

V. WiUard iii. 251 

Goodridge (.'. Lord ii. 302 

0. Koss i. 324 

Goodright d. Hall v. Richard.son i, 507 

d. Walter v. Davids i. 507 

Goodsall V. Boldcro ii. 479, 480 



Goodsall i: Wchb ii. 4P1 

Goodsell V. Myers i. 323, 324 

Goodson V. Brooke i. 5S 

V. Forbes iii. 299 

Goodspeed v. East Hnddam Bank i. 138 

Goodtitlo (J. Biiiley ii. 504, 789 

I.. Nortli iii. 221,509 

V. Southern i. 500 ; ii. 549, 550 

V. Toombs iii 221 

V. Woodward i. 187 

Goodwin v. Blackburne ii. 100 

V. Cromer ii. 618 

V. Ciuiningham i. 2.30 

t. Davenport i. 269 

(.-. Holbrook i. 534 ; ii. 653, 676 

V. Jones iii. 458, 455 

V. Lightbody iii. 410, 473, 479 

!'. Richardson i. 150 

u. Willoiighby i. 442 

Goodyear v. liurabaugh i. 373 

V. Watson ii. 6 

Gookin v. Graham i. 575 

V. N. E. Ins. Co. ii. 366 

Goold !). Chapin ii. 198, 199, 218 

Goom V. Aflalo iii. 13 

Gordon v. Bowne ii. 808, 376, 384, 740 

1^. Brewster iii. 175 

K. -Bucbaiian 1.82; ii. 169, 172 

V. Bulkeley i. 47 

V. Church ii. 743 

V. East India Co. ii. 259 

V. Freeman i. 200 

V. Haywood i. 365 

t>. Hutchinson ii. 164 

V. Jenney iii. 203 

V. Mass. Ins. Co. ii. 355, 3S4, 385 

V. Parker iii. 271 

u. Potter i. 304, 31 1 

V. Price i. 287 

V. Rimmington ii. 377, 448 

t'. Rolt i. 103 

V. Strange ii. 621 

V. Tucker ii. 690, 696, 698 

Gore V. Brazier iii. 223, 226 

V. Buzzard i. 406 

V. Gibson i. 383, 385; iii. 417, 461 

V. Wright ii. "98 

Gorgier v. Mieville i. 290, 291 

Gorham v. Stearns iii. 485, 486 

Gorrison v. Pcrrin ii. 543 

Gorst V. Lowndes ii. 664 

Gorton V. Dyson i. 127 

Gosbell V. Archer iii. 8 

Goslin V. Hodson ii. 54 

Gosling V. Bi]-nie ii. 142 

y. Higgins ii. 201,295 

Goss V. Lord Nugent ii. 305, 554 

V. Turner ii- 655 

V. Whitney ii. 764 

Goswiller's Estate ii. 664 

Gott V. Gandy i. 501 

Goudy V. Gebhart ii. 782 

Goudy i\ Gillam 

iii. 81 

Gougli, in re 

iii. 492 

Guugh V. Crane 

iii. 398 

V. Farr 

ii. 69 

V. ii'iiidon 

i. 237 

V. Howard 

i. 505 

V. Staats 

ii. 623 

Gould u. Aimstrony 

i. 441 

f. Biuilcs 

ii. 642 

V. Gould 

i. 3.5, 

1 57, 203 

V. Hill 

ii. 234, 

206, 237 

V. Oliver 

ii. 327 

I', l^arlin 

ii. 735 

u. Shirley 

i. 382 

u. Stanton 

ii. 267, 

268, 270 

r. AVobb 


.532, 607 

Gouldsworth v. Knights i. 508; ii. 797 

Gou|]y 0. Harden i. 263 

Gourdine v. Graham ii. 94 

Gourdon v. Ins. Co. ii. 354, 355 
Gourlay c. Duke of Somerset ii. 708 ; iii. 

355, 405 

Gouthwaite v. Duckworth i. 173, 176 

Gover V. Christie i. 224 

Governeur v. United Ins. Co. ii. 412 

Governor, The, i-. Gordon iii. 92 

Governor & Company of the Cast 

Plate Manufacturers v. iSIeredith iii. 540 

Governor, &c. of Copper Mines v. 

Fox i. 141, 449 

Governor, &c. v. Pctch i. 476 

Govctt V. Richmond ii. 689 

Govier v. Hancock i. 355 

Uowan V. Jackson i. 164 

V. Jeffries i. 1 99 

Gowen v. Forster iii. 74 

Gower v. C;ippcr i. 448 

( . Mainwaring i. 1 20 

!'. Jloore i. 270 

V. Saltmarsh iii. 162 

Grable v. iMargrave iii. 1 72 

Grabtree i-.iMay i. 315 

Grace v. Hale i. 296, 297 

c. Morgan iii. 164 

i'. Smith i. 159 

Graddon v. I'rice ii. 670 

Graeff;;. Hhcliman i. 173, 181, 183 

Graff u. Bloomer ii. 185 

Grafton, The ii. 196, 287 

Graham v. Ackroyd i. 93 

V. Barras ii. 400 

V. Bickham iii. 164 

u. Brettle i. 363 

V. Chapman iii. 484 

V. Dyster iii. 242, 261 

t). Grade i. 226, 445 

V. Graham ii. 706 

V. Hendren iii. 415 

V. Hope 1. 71, 169, 170 

V. Hunt 1. 382 

V. Jaekson iii. 209 

V. Kinder i. 197 



Gi-aliatn i\ AFn^'son i. Ill ; iii. 10, 13 

V. O'Niel ii. 7, 1 1 

u. Piorsoa iii. 524 

V. Robertson i. 26 

V. Sangston i. 283, 287 

V. Wiclielo i. 509 

Gram v. CadwcU i. 27 

V. Si;ton i. 110, 188 

Grammar School v. Burt iii. 532 

Granby o. Aialicrst i. 134 ; ii, 579 

r\IcCiccse ii. 670 

Grand Banlc «. Blanchard 1. 280 

Grandin v. Lc Roy i. 259 Turk, The ii. 334 

Granger, ev parte iii. 517 

Granger a. Collins i. 473, 504 

I). George iii. 92 

V. Howard Ins. Co. ii. 450 

Grangiae v. Anion i. 432 

Granite Railway Co. a. Bacon ii. 719, 

Grant, in re i 345 ; iii. 500, 512 

11. Cole i. 76 

i>. Da Costa i. 250 

V. EUicott i. 237 ; iii. 495 

V. Fletcher iii. 13 

V. Hamilton ii. 756 

V. Healcy i. 289 

V. Howard Ins. Co. ii. 424, 429, 434 
V. Johnson ii. 530, 532 

V. King ii. 135 

V. Maddox ii. 536, 547 

V. Mills iii. 468 

V. M'Lachlia , ii. 278 

V. Naylor ii. 4 

V. Norway i. 45 ; ii. 177, 290 

V. Paxton ii. 362 

V. Kidsdale ii. 22 

V. Royal Exchange Ass. Com- 
pany ii. 738, 740 
V. Thompson i. 384, 387 
V. Vaughan 'i. 242, 291 
Grantham v. Hawley i. 522, 523 
Grassclli v. Lowden ii. 751 
Gratitudine, The 1. 78 ; ii. 284, 285, 335, 


Gratz V. Bayard i. 200 

o. Gratz ii. 692 

V. Redd iii. 398 

Grarenor v. Woodhouse i. 507 

Graves v. Boston Mar. Ins. Co. i. 55 ; ii. 

354, 358 
V. Bale ii. 725 

V. Dash i. 288 

V. Harwood ii. .555 

V. Lcgg ii. 532 

V. Merry i. 1 69 

V. Sawcer ii. 266 

V. Tucker ii. 9 

V. Weeks iii. 96 

V. Woodbury ii. 735 

Gray v. Bartlett ii. 796 

Gray r. Belden iii. 107 

V. Bell i. 279 
V. Bennett iii. 469, 473, 481 

V. Brackenridge i. 116 

0. Briscoe iii. 225, 227 
V. Brown ii. 26; iii. 113, 122 

V. Clark ii. 50 i, 513 

V. Cox i. 589 

V. Crosby iii. IfiO 

u. Davis iii. 43 

V. Donahoe i. 24S 

V. Fowler iii. IHi 

V. Gardner ii. 367 

V. Gutteridge ii. 628 

u. Handkinson i. 428 

V. Holdship i. 513 

V. Mendez iii. 94 

V. Munroe iii. 550 

u. Portland Bank iii. 198, 205 

V. Sims ii. 375 
V. Wain ii. 299, 325, 328, 331 

V. Wass ii. 614 

V. Wilson ii. 708 

Gray De Wilton v. Saxon iii. 373 

Graysbrook v. Fox i. 132 
Great ISTorthern R. Co. u. Shepherd ii. 254, 

Greaves v. Ashlin i. 527 ; ii. 535 

0. Key ii. 793 

Greely v. Bartlett i. 58 

i;. Dow ii. 26 

V. Hunt i. 277 

V. Smith ii. 733 
V. Tremont Ins. Co. ii. 234, 326, 

V. Waterhouse ii. 282, 284 

Green, ex parte i. 308 

V. Armstrong iii. 33 

V. Barrett i. 203 

u. Beatty ii. 617 

V. Beesley ii. 229 

V. Bicknell iii. 506, 509 

u. Biddle iii. 221, 551 

V. Bradfield iii. 425 

V. Briggs ii. 266 

u. Brown ii. 376 

u. Button iii. 181 

V. Clark ii. 728, 732 

V. Clarke iii. 193 

V. Cope i. 64 

V. Cresswell iii. 22 

V. Davis iii. 314 

u. Bales iii. 233 

V. Farley i. 281 
0. Farmer iii. 196, 200, 256 

V. Goings i. 272 

V. Gosdon ii. 770 

V. Green ii. 793 

V. Hatch i. 230 

V. Horno i. 62 

V. Hulett ii. 35 

u. Kemp iii. 122 



Groen v. Kopka 
V. Lane 
u. Lowell 
u. Mann 
V. Pole 
V. Price 
V. Rivett 
V. Sargeant 
V. Sarmiento 
V. Shui'tliff 
u. S perry 
V. lanner 
V. Winter 
V. Young 
Greenaway v. Adams 
Greenby «. Wilcoeks 
Greene v. Bateman 
V. Darling 
I). Dingley 
V. Dodge 

i. 96 

i. 418 

ii. 615 

ii. 178, 185, 2.33 

ii. 710, 711 

ii. 7.50 

iii. 64 

i. 88 

iii. 436, 442, 444 

ii. 638 

i. 316, 347 

i. 65, 173, 183 

i. 122, 135 

ii. 380, 411 

i. 506 ; iii. 403 

i. 129, 232 

i. 475 ; iii. 208 

i. 227 

ii. 661 

ii. 29 

V. First Parish in Maiden i. 513 

V. Greene i. 149, 151 

V. Hatch i. 230 

Greenfield Bank v. Leavitt iii. 196 

Greenhow's Adra'x v. Harris iii. 109 

Greening, ex parte iii. 470, 495 

V. Wilkinson iii. 198, 206 

Greenland y. Chaplin ii. 233; iii. 180 

Greenlaw v. Greenlaw ii. 605 

Greenleaf K. Kellogg ii. 635 

i,'. Quincy iii. 81 

Greenough v. Rolfe ii. 703 

V. Smead i. 243 

V. Wigginton i. 368 

Greeno v. Munson i. 508 

Greenslade v. Dower i. 181 

Greenup v. Vernon i. 51 7 

Greenwald v. Ins. Co. ii. 448 

Greenway, ex parte i. 292; iii. 511 

V. Fisher iii. 524 

Greenwood, in re ii. 707 

V. Bishop of London i. 458 

V. Brodhead i. 214 

V. Curtis ii. 595, 596 

V. Lidbetter ii. 686 

Gregg's Case iii. 157 

V. James ii. 615 

V. Thompson i. 411 

V. Wells ii. 793, 796 

V. Wyman ii. 762, 763 

Gregory w. Christie 'i. 411, 414 

V. Frazer ' i. 384 ; iii. 344 

V. Harman i. 127 

V. Hurrill ii. 95 

V. McDowell iii. 208 

V. Mighell iii. 356, 39.'?, 396, 405 

V. Paul i. 372 

V. Pierce i. 367 

V. Piper i. 103 

V. Striker u. 132 

V. Thomas i. 570 

V. Wilson iii. 408 

Gregson v. Ruck iii. 13 

Greignier, ex parte iii. 463 

Gremare v. Le Clerk Bois Valod i. 458 
Greneaux v. Wheeler i. 255, 259 

Grendell v. Godmond i. 352 

GrenfcU u. Dean and Canons of 

Windsor i. 225 

V. Girdlestoue iii. 85 

Grew V. Burditt ii. 738 

Grey, ex parte iii. 464 

I), Cooper i. 330 

V. Friar ii. 532 

Gridley v. Dole i. 104 

Grier r. Grier ii. 694 

V. Hood i. 191 

Griffin V. Doe i. 156 

V. Eyles iii. 269 

V. Macaulay i. 30 

V. McKenzie iii. 557 

Griffith )>. Buffiim i. 1.57 

V. Griffith iii. 284 

V. Insurance Co. of N. A. ii. 399 

V. Wells i. 459 

Griffiths V. Owen ii. 683, 684; iii. 75 

V. Pulcston i. 510 

Grim V. Pliceni.\. lus. Co. ii. 446, 449 

Grimman v. Logge i. 509 ; ii. 659, 798 

Grimaldi v. Wiute i. 594 

Giinnaru v. Bnton Rouge Mills Co. i. 169 

Grimshaw v. Bender i. 285 

u. Walker iii. 448 

Grindell u. Godmond i. 303 

Grinnell v. Cook ii. 146, 154, 156 

Grisby v. Nance i. 165 

Grissell v. Robinson i. 470 

Griswold v. McMillan iii. 468 

i^. N. Y. Ins. Co. ii. 297, 389, 


V. Pratt iii. 446, 478 

V. Slieldon i 530 

V. Waddington i. 154, 195, 199 


Grome, ex parte iii. 505 

Groning v. Mendham i. 594 

Groom r. Mealey iii. 515 

u. Thomas iii. 461 

Groom v. West iii. 483, 515 

Gross V. Criss ii. 537 

Grosvenor v. Atl. F. Ins. Co. ii. 355, 452 

V. Flax & Hemp Manuf. 

Co. iii. 109 

0. Gold iii. 513 

V. Lloyd i. 167 

Grote V. The C. & H. R. Co. ii 228 

Groton V. Dalheim i 270 

Grounx v. Abat i 412 

Grove V. Bastard iii. 379, 380 

V. Brien ii. 5 

V. Dubois 1. 92 

Grover v. Wakeman iii. 426 

Groves v. Buck iii. 55 

I/. Graves iii. 116 



Groves c. reil<ins 

V. Slaughter 

V. Sinith 
Grugeon v. Smith 
Grymes h. Buwcrcn 
G Tsiel V. Whiclieott 
Guard v. Whiteside 
GuurdiiiQ of Siitly v. 
Giierlain v. Col. Ins. 
Guernsey v. Carver 
Guerreiro c. Peile 
Guerry v. Ferryman 
Guichard o. Superveile 
Guidon V. Tiii'isim 
Guier i\ O'Daniel 
Guier's Case 
Guild V. Guild 

y. Koj^ers 
GuiUe V. Swan 
Guillod V. Nock 
Guliek r. Gulick 
GuUett V. Lamlievton 

V. Lewis 
Gulliver v. Driukwater 
Gully V. Bishop of Exeter 

.... Gully 
Cnnnis r. F.rhart 
Gunter u. Astor 

i\ Halsey 
Gnrley v. Hiteshue i: 

Gurney v. Bchrend 

V. Crockett 

V. Sharp 

V. Womersley 
Gustavia, The 
Guth V. Guth 
Guthrie r. iMurphy 

('. Puji^ley 
Gutteridue v. Munyard 
Guy V. Sharp 
11. Tams 
Gwillim ('. Daniel 

V. Stone 
Gwin V. Whitiikcr 
Gwinnell v. Herbert 
Gwynn, ex parte 
Gynes v. Kemsley 
Gwynn v. Leo 
Gwynne, ^t parte 

V. Heaton 
Gvlbort V. Fletcher 

i. 493 

i. <tl6 

i. 15G 

' i. 283 

i. 512, 513 

iii. 131 

ii. 713 

i. 413 

ii. 352 

iii. 189 

i 58, 93, 498 

i. 227 

iii. 90 

i. 22 

ii. 582 

ii. 513 

ii. 47 

i. 518 

iii. 182 

ii. 638 

i. 164, 165 

i. 329 

ii. 614, 615 

iii. 509 

i. 432 

ii. 514 

i. 494 

ii. 48 

iii. GO 

. 359, 37.i, 414 

i. 607 

ii. 264 

iii. 259 

i. 242, 262 

ii. 264 

i. 357 

i. 311 

iii. 227 

iii. 233 

ii. 560 

iii. 69 

ii. 302 

iii. 403 

. 632 ; iii. 103 

i. 263 

iii. 134 

ii. 550 

i. 254 

. 598 ; iii. 257 

i. 4'J3 

i. 315 ; ii. 50 

Hacklcy v. Ilo'skins 
V. S|)rnf;ue 
Ilackwood c. Lyall 
Haddock a. Bury 

f. Murray 
Haddon r. C'humhcrs 
, Hadloy v. Baxendale 
r. Clarke 
HafFey (;. Birchetts 
Hafner v. Irwin 
Hagard r. Raymond 
i Hagedorn v. Bell 
I u. Olivcrson 

Hager v. Nolan 
Ha^^^art t'. ^lorgan 
H;iL:gerston r. Banbury 
Haggerty v. Taluier 
Halin V. Hartley 
Haigh V. Brooks i. 444 

V. Dc La Cour 
Haight V. Badgeley 
Haille c. Smith' 
Haine v. Tarrant 
Haines v. Busk 
V. C!orliss 

V. Haines i. 421 

Hains !■. Jettcl 
Hair r. Bell 
Hairston v. Hairston 
Hakes c. Hotcliki-^s 
Haldane o. Johnson 
Haldeman v. JNIiehael 
Hale, ex parte 

V. Baldwin 

V. Gcrribh 

t;. Henderson 

r. James 

V. Lawrence 

V. JMuchanics Ins. Co 

ii. 52 

iii. 117, 118 

ii. 275, 280 

i. 271 

i. 279 

iii. 507 

ii. 185 ; iii. 183 

ii. 185, 295, 675 

iii. 226 



Haas V. Flint 
Hacker i>. Storer 
Ilaeket v. Glover 

u. Tilly 
Hiickett V. B. C. & M. Rd. Co. 


. Martin 
V. McNamara 

i. 129 
i. 500 
i. 457 
ii. 175 
i. 227; ii. 452 
iii. 358, 368, 411 

I . Mercantile Ins. Co. 

u. Rawson 

u. Small 

u. Smith 

V. W^ishington Ins. Co. 
Haley v. Pi>rclie-ter Ins. Co. 
Half hed i. Jenning 
Half liide f. Fenning 
Halford c. Kymcr 
Halhead u. Voung 
Ilaliday, ex parte 
Halifax V. Chambers 
Hall, ex parte 

V. Aslmi'st 

u. Barnard 

u. Boardinan 

V. Brinkley 

I'. Buffalo, The 

V. Campbell 

!'. Cannon 

V. Cazcnove 

ni. 420 

iii. 508 

ii. 360 

ii. 269, 

3.53, 358 

ii. 54 

ii. 708 

ii. 504 

i. 538 

ii. 397 

; ii. 563; iii. 16 

ii. 369, 416 

ii. 48 

ii. 292 ; iii. 262 

i. 298 

i. 100 

i. 344 

!1 ; iii, 359, 361 

i. 338 

ii. 38, 659 

ii. 579 

i. 442 ; ii. 548 

i. 502 ; ii. 636 

iii. 486 

iii. 51 5 

in. 5.54 

i. 3 23,324 

i. 459 

iii. 223 

ii. 592 

ii. 355, 372, 

452, 458 

ii. 415 

i. 563 

iii. 460 

i. 575 

ii. 377 

ii. 457 

ii. 708 

ii. 708 

ii. 479 

ii, 362 

iii. 464 

i. 505 

iii. 460, 470, 495 ■ 

i. 116; ii. 30 

iii. 493 

iii. 482 

iii. 270 

ii. 311 

ii. 569 

ii. 54 

ii. 554 



Hall V. Clagctt iii. 397 
V. Conn. River Steamboat Co. ii. 220 

V. Cook ii. 745 

V. Crowley iii. 163 

V. Cushing iii. 470 

V. Daggett iii. 134 

V. Dean iii. 228 

V. Denison iii. 426 

V. Dewey i. 508 

V. Dyson i. 456 

V. Farmer ii. 1 1 

V. Fisher ii. 796, 797 

V. Flocliton ii. 685 
ti. Franlilin Ins. Co. ii. 277,387, 412 

V. Fuller i. 264 

V. Gardner i. 228 

V. Hale i. 255 
V. Hall i. 196, 212, 354 ; iii. 392 

V. Hardy iii. 355, 413 

V. Hill ii. 553 

V. Huffam i. 31 

V. Janson ii. 327, 547 

V. Leigh i. 25 

V. Little iii. 96 

V. Marston i. 221 

V. Mayhew ii. 502 

V. McDuff iii. 281 

V. Mollineaux ii. 362 
V. MuUin i. 409, 410, 414, 415 

i). Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 361, 386 

V. Odber ii. 608, 612 

V. Ody ii. 735, 736 
u. People's Ins. Co. ii. 351, 437 

V. Potter ii. 74 

V. Power ii. 230 

V. Reed iii. 399 
V. Eenfro i. 114; ii. 162 

V. Richardson ii. 1 84 
V. Robinson i. 223, 226, 526 

f. Eupley ii. 52.3 

V. Savage i. 365 

V. Seabright ii. 681 

V. Smalhvood ii. 687 

V. Smith i. 11 

V. Snowhill i. 570 

V. Southmayd i. 517 

1). Surtees ii. 798 

V. Timmons i. 318 

V. Tuttle iii. 249 

V. Warren iii. 351, 461 

V. Williams ii. 609 

V. Wilson i. 241 

V. Wright > ii. 67 

and Hinds, in re ii. 88 

Hallen v. Runder i. 511 ; iii. 34 

Hallett V. Dowdall i. 192 

V Wigram ii. 326 

Halliday v. McDougall i. 287 

V. Ward iii. 85 

Hallock p. Ins.Co. ||- ''^'^ 

Halloway v. Davis ii. 533 

Hallowell v. Curry i. 274 

VOL I. . 

HallowoU V. Howard ii. 645 

V. Saco ii. 579 

Bank v. Howard ii. 740 

Halsey v. Brown ii. 538 

V. Fairbanks i. 22 

V. Grant Iii. 401, 402 

V. Whitney i. 186; iii. 426 

V. Woodruff i. 28 

Halstead v. Shepard * i. 179, 185 

Halwerson v. Cole ii. 202 

Haly V. Lane i. 2.'<2 

Ham II. Goodrich iii. 35 

V. Ham ii. 790 

V. Hamburgh, The ii. 271 

Hamaker v. Eberley i, 442; ii. 713 

Hambidge v. Crouee i. 191 

Hnmbleton !). Veere iii. 187 

Hamblin v. Dinneford iii. 375 

Hamil v. Stokes i. 203 

Hamill v. Purvis i. 186 

Hamilton v. Benbury ii. 629 

V. Cunningham i. 85, 86 

V. Denny iii, 282 

V. Hamilton ii. 796 

V. Lycoming Mutual Ins. 

Co. i. 484 ; ii. 350, 420 

V. Mai-sden i. 507 

V. McDonald i. 225 

V. Mendes ii. 384 

V. Pearson i. 264 

V. Royse i. 83 

V. Russell i. 530 

V. Seaman i. 194 

V. Slieddou ii. 412 

V. Summers i. 182 

I'. Terry i. 475 

V. Watson ii. 8 

College V. Stewart i. 452 

Hamlin v. Stevenson i. 294 

Hammat v. Emerson i. 465 ; ii. 778 

Hammersley v. De Beil iii. 29 

V. Knowlys ii. 632 

Hammett ;;. Yea iii. 108, 134 

Hammond, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Allen ii. 364 

u. Am. Mut. L. I. Co. ii. 487, 


V. Anderson i; 527, 601 ; 

iii. 257 

V. Chamberlin i. 244 

V. Douglas i. 152, 202 

0. Essex Ins. Co. ii. 392 

V. Hammond i. 415 

V. Hopping iii. 113, 121 

V. McClures ii. 203, 294 

V. Messenger i. 224, 225 

V. Eeid ii. 414 

V. Rogers ii. 348 

(.. Smith iii. 116, 117 

<;. Toulmin iii. 505, 509, 510 

Hammon v. Roll i. 186, 442 

Hammonds v. Barkley iii. 259, 272 



Hamond v. Holirlay i. 85, 99 

Hamper, tx parte i. 156, 161 

Hampshire v. Peirce ii. 564 

Hamson v. Hamson ' iii. 460 

Hampton v. M'Counell ii. 609, 610 

Hamrick v. Hoi^g ii. 777 

Hancliet v. Whitney i. 513 

Hancock v. Caffyn iii. 469, 470, 498 

v. Entwisle iii. 506 

V. Fairfield i. 64 

y. Hodgson i. 65; iii. 107 

V. Reede ii. 696 

Hancock's Appeal ii. 784 

Hancox v. Dunning ii. 262 

V. Fishing Ins. Co. ii. 368 

Hand v. Bnyncs ii. 183, 186, 286 

f. Elvira, The ii. 316, 318 

Handford v. Palmer ii. 127 

V. Rogers ii. 554 ; iii. 16 

Handley v. Chambers iii. 230 

Hands v. Slaney i, 297 

Hanford v. Rogers ii. 553 

Hankey v. (iarratt i. 207 

V. Jones iii. 460 

Hankinson v. Sandilaus i. 12 

Hanks v. Deal i. 313, 316 

a. McKee i. 583 

</. Palling i. 539 

Hanna v. Flint i. 162 

V. Harter iii. 207 

V. Mills iii. 210, 211 

V. Phelps ii. 207; iii. 254 

V. Wilson iii. 358 

Hannah v. Carrington iii. 420 

Hannan ii. Jolinson i, 184 

Hannay v. Eve ii. 753 

Hanover v. Turner ii. 605 

Hansard v. Robinson i. 292 

Hansbrough v. Baylor iii. 144, 146 

V. Gray i. 2.) 7 

Hansoll v. Erickson ii. 37, 526 

Hanson, ex parte iii. 468 

V. Ai-mitage iii. 45, 48, 49 

V. Buckner 1. 235 ; iii. 226 
V. Meyer i. 527, 534, 601 ; iii. 257 

V. Roberdcau i. 497 

V. Rowe i. 112 ; iii. 10 

V. Rowell ii. 346 

V. Stetson i. 452 

ti. Stevenson iii. 490 

Hantz V. The York Bank iii. 103 

Harb-irt's Case i. 31 ; iii. 423 

Harbin v. Levi ii. 738 

Harbold v. Kuntz iii. 69 

Harcourt v. Kamsbottom iii. 378 
Hard o. Vt. &. Canada R. R. Co. ii. 43 

Hardcastle v. Nethcrwood ii. 739 

Hardell v. McClure iii. 55 

Harden v. Gordon i. 390 ; ii. 342 

Harder v. Harder iii. 406 

Hardey v. Coe ii. 686 

Hardie v. Grant i. 352 

Hardin v. Ho-yo-po-Nubby's Lessee i. 11,? 

Harding v. Aldun ii. 601, 605 

V. Ambler ii. 789 

a. Davies ii. 639, 643 

V. Foxcroft i. 163; ii. 266 

V. McNamara iii. 349 

V. Souther ii. 301 

V. Wilson i. 500 

Hardison, In re iii. 459 

Hai-dman v. Bellhouse ii. 685 

V, Hardman ii. 514 

V. Wilcock ii. 204 

Hardwicke 0. Vernon i. gg 

Hardy v. Corlis ii. 742 

"• Innes ii. 395, 695 

V. Nelson iii. 165, 226 

V. Ryle ii. 664 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 372, 434, 458 

V. Waltham iii. 545 

Hare v. Hortoa ii. 515 

V. Heuty i. 269 

V. Travis ii. 411, 413 

Harford v. Morris ii. 599 

Harger v. M'Mains iii, 199 

Hargous v. Ablon iii. I8I 

V. Stone i, 561, 585 

Hargrave v. Dusenberry ii. 622 

u. Hargrave iii. 408 

V. Smoe ii. 494, 510 

Hargreaves v. Hutchinson iii. 109, 127 

I'. Parsons iii. 21, 22, 26 

V. Rothwell i. 75 

Hargroves v. Cooke ii. 629; iii. 16 

Harker y. Dement ii. 118 

Harkins v. Shoup i. 256 

Harlan v. Harlan i. 436 

Harland's Case i. 122, 123 

Harley v. King iii. 467 

Harlow v. Thomas iii. 228 

Harmau y. Anderson i. 603; ii. 142; iii. 

43, 488 

V. Fisher i. 609 ; iii. 485 

V. Gandolph ii. 305 

y. Goodrich iii. 204 

II. Johnson i. 185 

V. Kingston ii. 362 

V. Reeve iii. 17 

y. Vanhatton ii. 283 

Harmcr y. Bell ii. 314 

V. Killing i. 324 

Harmony y. Bingham i. 395 ; ii. 185, 67:; 

Harnett v. Yielding iii. 351, 354, 40b 

Harney v. Owen i. 315, 320 

Harnur v. Groves ii, .148 

Harper y. Mut. Ins. Co. ii. 424, 617 

<-•. Calhoun ii. 740 

V. Gilbert i. 315; ii. 50 

y. Hampton ii. 688 

y. Little i. 68 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. ii. 475 

Harratt y. Wise ii. 399 

Hairell y. Kelly iii. 99 



Harrell v. Owens 

ii. 185 

Harrison v. Lord North 

Harriett v. Ridgely 

i. 402 

V. McConkey 

Harriagton v. Brown 

i. 88 

V. McHenry 

V. Hingham 

i. 191 

V. Murrell 

V. Kloprogge 

ii. 500 

V. Ruscoe 

V. Long 

ii. 766 

K. Sterry i. 

V. Lyles 

ii. 169 

V. McNaughton 

iii. 505 

V. Young 

V. McShane 

iii. 211 


V. Snyder ii. 121, 125, 127, 


V. Stratton i. 465 

Han-iot, The ii. 321 

Harris v. Birch iii. 319 

V. Boston iii. 134, 135 

ti. Campbell i. 12 

V. Carter ii. 347 

V. Clarke i. 237, 282 

V. Costap ii. 220 

V. Curnow ii. 695 

V. Delamar ii. 780 

V. Eagle Ins. Co. ii. 352, 453 

V. Farwell i. 170 

17. Harris i. 369 

V. Huntbach ii. 4 

V. Jones iii. 233 

V. Knickerbocker iii. 356 

V. Lee i. 352 

V. Mills iii. 100 

V. Mitchell ii. 707 

V. Moody ii. 327 

V. Morris i. 352, 354, 356 

V. Mott iii. 413 

V. Ohio Ins. Co. ii. 457 

V. Osbourn iii. 93 

V. Packwood ii. 175, 241, 252 

V. Palmer ii. 736 

, V. Porter iii. 36 

t). Rand ii. 201 

V. Reynolds ii. 683, 708 

V. Roof ii. 755 

V. Runnells i. 457 

o. Wall i. 323, 324, 325 

V. Warner i. 36, 38 

V. Watson i. 437 ; ii. 347 

V. Wilson i. 176 ; ii. 691 

Harrison, ex parte ii. 266, 270 ; iii. 460, 506 

V. Bainbridge ii. 736 

V. Berkley iii. ISO 

V. Cage ii. 61, 65, 67 

V. Clifton i. 293 

V. Close i. 27, 187 

V. Crowder i. 266 

V. Fane i. 296, 297 

17. Gardner i. 154 

17. Hall i. 362 

V Harnel iii. 122 

0. Harrison iii. 198, 205 

V. Heathorn i. 144, 145 

». Jackson i. 110 

17. Knight i. 445 

17. Lemon i. 384 

i. 505 

ii. 482 

i. 87 

ii. 129 

1. 63 


iii. 536 

i. 44, 70 

Harrold c. Whitaker i. 25 

Harrop v. Fisher i. 62, 253 

Harry v. Decker i. 419 

Harshman v. Lowe iii. 426 

Hart V. Aldridge ii. 48 

87. Crane iii. 449 

V. Crow i. 378 

t7. Deamer i. 387 

17. Dorman ii. 635 

V. Granger ii. 726 

V. Hammett i. 582 

17. Nash iii. 74 

V. Prater i. 289 

V. Prendergast iii. 66, 68 

V. R. & S. R. R. Co. ii. 218 

V. Sattley Iii. 47, 48 

V. Stephens i. 343 

17. Tallmadge ii. 774 

V. TenEyck i. 89; ii. 120 

17. Windsor i. 501, 50.5, 589 

V. Woods iii. 12 

V. Wright i. 587, 588 

Harteau v. Harteau ii. 601, 605 

Harten v. Gibson i. 337 

Harter v. Moore ii. 25 

Hartfield v. Roper i. 316 ; ii. 231 

Hartford Bank v. Stcdman i. 280 

Hartley, ar porie iii. 471 

u. Buggin ii. 411,412 

V. Case i. 283 

17. Cummings ii. 34, 750 

17. Harman ii. 34, 41 

V, Herring iii. 177 

V. Rice ii. 64, 73, 756 

V. Wharton i. 293, 323, 324 

Hartman v. Dowdel i. 342 

V. Keystone Ins. Co. ii. 470, 478 

Hartnell v. Hill ii. 696 

Hartop 17. Hoare ii. 95 ; iii. 154 

Hartshorn i7. S. & L. Dealers Ins. Co. 

ii. 369 

17. Slodden iii. 486 

Harvard College 17. Gore ii. 579 

Harvev, ex parte iii. 460, 476 

V. Archbold ii. 586; iii. 114 

V. Ashley iii. 354 

17. Brydges i. 515 

17. Crickett i. 200, 201 

17. Epes ii. 128 

V. Gibbons i. 462 

V. Harvey i. 513 

17. Richards ii. 571, 729 

II. Snow iii. 220 


Harver v. Troupe i. 271 

u. Tuiner iii. 192 

Harvie v. Oswel i. 507 

Hanvood v. Bartlett iii. 479 

V. Bhind i. 495 

... Hfffer i. 353 

Hasbrook v. Paddock ii. 560 

V. Palmer i. 248 

Hasbrouck v. Andorvoort ii. 117 

Hascall v. Wliitmore i. 253, 255 

Haselington v. Gill iii. 499 

Haskell n. Adams i. 164 

i\ Hilton i. 224 

V. Pice i. 527 

Hasket v. Wootan ii. 755, 756 

Haskins v. Hamilton Ins. Co. ii. 437, 4.')3 

V. Lombard ii. 725, 728 

Haslet V. Haslet iii. 392 

V. Street i. 187 

Hassam v. St. Louis Perpet. Ins. Co. 

ii. 326 

Hassard v. Eowe i. 135 

Hassel v. Simpson iii. 485, 486 

Hassell r. Lon^' ii. 31 

Hassin^er v. Diver ii. 55 

Hastelow v. Jaekson ii. 627 

Hastie V. De I'eyster ii. 373 

Hastings v. Bailor House i. 51 

V. Lovering i. 582 

u. Pepper ii. 163, 169, 294 

V. Whitley ii. 750 

V. Wilson iii. 490 

V. Wiswall ii. 636; iii. 151, 152 

Hatch V. Bayley i. 531 ; ii. 784 

V. Cobb iii. 386, 403 

V. Dennis ii. 452 

V. Lineoln i. 531 

V. Purcell i. 470 

V. Searlcs i. 242 

(/. Smith iii. 425, 426 

V. Taylor i. 41, 57 

V. Trayes i. 250 

Hatchell v. Odom i. 435 

Hatcher v. Hatrher iii. 393 

V. JI' Morino i. 277 

Hatchett 11. Gibson ^ ii. 139 

Hathaway c. Trenton Ins. Co. ii. 474 

Hatsall i>. Griffith i. 11, 22, 24; ii. 616 

Hatton V. BraL,';; iii. 246 

V. Gray iii. 9 

HatzfieUI r. Gulden ii. 755 

Hauberger v. Koot iii. 400 

Haughey v. Stricklei i. 176 

Haughton v. Haylry i. 22 

V. Eustis iii. 514 

I'. Ewbank i. 48, 49 

Hauls V. Homyng ii. 670 

Havana, The ii. 337 

Havelock v. Geddcs ii. 302, 532 

V. Rockwood ii. 278 

Haven v. Low i. 530 

V, Richardson iii. 426 

Havens v. Bush ii. 529, 530 

V. Hussey i. 178 

Haverly v. Leightou ii. 671 

Haward v. Smith iii. 340 
Hawcroft v. Great Northern Railway 

Co. ii. 174 

Hawes v. Armstrong iii. 16 

u. Forster iii. 13 

u. Humble i. 554, 560 

V. Lawrence i. 354, 339 

V. Marcliant ii. 794, 705 

V. Tillinghast 

i. 162 

Hawkes v. Eastern Ry. Co. 

iii. 352, 354, 


V. HinchcliiF 

ii. 119 

V. Saunders 

i. 434 

V. Salter 

i. 282 

Hawkins, ex parte 

iii. 463, 464 

V. Appleby 

i. 185 

V. Barney 

iii. 548 

V. Berry 

i. 580 

V. Cardy 

i. 2,S2 

V. Chace 

iii. 10 

V. Clutterbuck 

iii. 263 

V. Colclough 

ii. 692 

V. Cooper 

ii. 230 

V. Craig 

i. 345 

V. Gilbert 

ii. 36 

V. Hoftman 

ii. 254, 253 

V. Holmes 

iii. 5 

u. Kemp 

iii. 232 

V. Moffit 

i. 236 

I'. Pythian 

ii. 121 

V. Rutt 

ii. 621 

V. Vanwinckle 

i. 403 

u. Warre 

iii. 345 

Hawkyns v. Ohvn 

iii. 4S2 

Hawley v. Beverley 

iii. 524 

V. Farrar 

i. 434 

V. Foote 

ii. 625, 683 

V. Hodgo 

ii. 711 

f. James 

i. 135 

V. Smith 

ii. 1.34 

Hawtayne v. Bourne 

i. 4.3, 58 

Hawtliorn r. Hammond 

ii. 1.30 

Haxall y. .Shippen 

ii. 356 

Ha,\tun V. Bisliop 

i. 272, 273 

I'. Corse 

iii. 433 

Hay V. Ayling 

i. 45s 

V. Bloomer, The 

ii. 337 

V. Colioes Co., Tho 

iii. 167 

V, Fairbairn 

ii. 273 

Haycraft v. Creasy 

ii. 775 

Hayden v. Cabot 

iii. 186 

V. Johnson 

iii. 66 

V. Madison i. 470 

; ii. 37, 524 

Haydon, ex part* 

i. 211 

V. WilUams i. 382 ; iii. 66, 71, 86 

Hayes v. Bement i. 216 

'■. Heyer i. 179 

V. Kershaw iii. 363 

V. Warren i. 446 



flayman v. Mohou 

ii. 277 

II. Pond 

iii. 459 

Haynes v. Biiks 

i. 283 

V. Covington 

ii. 26 

V. Holliday 

ii. 536 

V. Eowe 

ii. 361 

Hays V. Borders 

ii. 48 

V. Mouille 

i. 596, 


V. Riddle ii. 119; iii. 201, 238 

V. Stone i. 51, 81 

Hay ward v. Cuthburt iii. 222 

V. Hayward i. 343 ; iii. 481 

u. Leonard li. 524 

I;. Mirtdlcton ii. 207, 541 

V. Tlie Pilgrim Society i. 139 

V. Scougall i. 533 

V. Young ii. 750 

V. Rodgei-s ii. 472 

Hazard v. Hazard i. 1 66 

V. Irvin ii. 783 

V. New Eng. Mar. Ins. Co. 

i. 475 ; ii. 308, 357, 390, 408, 409 

V. Smith iii. 120 

V. Treadwell i. 70 

Hazen v. Addis ii. 693 

V. Union Bank of Tennessee 

iii. 529 

Hazlebaker v. Reeves iii. 69 

Head v. Goodwin i. 523 

Headley v. Kirby i. 236 

Heald v. Kenworthy i. 63 

Healey v. Spence ii. 688 

Health v. Hall i. 445 

Heane v. Rogers ii. 793, 794, 795 ; iii. 


Heaney v. Heeney iii. 178 

Heanny v. Bircli iii. 460 

Heaphy v. Hill iii. 416 

Heapy v. Paris i. 72 

Heai-d v. Bowers iii. 160, 162 

17. Rogers ii. 337 

V. Stamford i. 341, 344 

Hearle v. Greenbank i. 1 1 

Hearne v. Kiehl ii._685 

Hearsey v. Pruyn i. 79 

Hearshy v. Hickox .i- 97 

Heartt v. Chipman t!' '^® 

Heatchcock v. Pennington ii. 124 

Heath, in re iii. 519 

V. Chilton i. 129 

V. Franklin Ins. Co. ii- 461 

V. Hall i. 229 

V. Sansom i. '98 

V. West i- 321 

Heathcoate v, Crookshanks i. 222 

V. Hulrae i. 202 

Heatherly v. Record ii. 533 

Heaton v. Angier i- 218 

Hebden v. Rutter i. 448 ; iii. 61 

Heck V. Shener ii. 740 

Hecksher v. McCrea iii. 194 

Hector, The ii- 319 

Hedderley, ar parte • iii. 512 

Hedger v. Steavenson i. 283 

Hedges V. Riker i. 134 

V. Sealy i. 227 
Hedgley v. Holt i. 298, 313 ; ii. 42 

Hedwig, The ii. 318 
Heebner v. Eagle Ins. Co. ii. 384, 390 

Heermance u. Vernoy i. 575 

Hcffer V. Heffer ii. 83 

Hegarty v. Milne iii. 296 
Hegeman v. W. R. R. Co. ii. 219, 220 

Heimstreet v. Rowland i. 162 

Heinecke v. Earle i. 609 

Hcintz V. Cahn ii. 629 

Hellaby v. Weaver ii. 168, 217 

HellawcU v. Eastwood i. 512 

Helena, The ii. 278 

Helm V. Bryant ii. 547 

V. Wilson ii. 524 

Helme v. Smith ii. 266, 269 

Helmsley v. Loader i. 113 

Helps V. Hereford ii. 790 

V. Winterbottom iii. 91 

Helsby v. Mears ii. 213 

Helscy v. Fairbanks i. 26 

Helyear v. Hawke i. 58, 60 

Hcmans v. Picciotto ii. 527 

Hemmenway v. Stone i. 1 1 

Hemingway v. Hamilton ii. 771 

Hemphill v. Chenie • ii. 186, 193 

Hemp V. Garland iii. 93 

Henbach v. Moliman i. 92 

Henchman v. Offley ii. 362 

Henck v. Todhunter i. 1 13 

Henderson, ex parte iii. 462 
V. Australian Royal Mail 

Steam Nav. Co. i. 139 

V. Barnewall i. 83, 546 ; iii. 10 

V. Blanchard iii. 103 

V. Buckley ii. 700 

V. Clarke i. 2?3 

V. Henderson ii. 606 ; iii. 228 

V. Hudson i. 156 

V. Johnson iii. 16 

V. Lauck i. 526 

V. Lewis ii. 739 

V. Mayliew ii. 271 

V. McDuffee i. 35 

V. Moore ii. 618 

V. Stringer i. 356 

V. Western Ins. Co. ii. 449 

Hendren v. Colgin i. 341 

Hendricks u. Franklin i. 288 

V. Judah i. 260 ; iii. 524 

V. Mount iii. 425 

u. Phillips i. 407 

V. Robinson iii. 426 

Henen v. Munro ii- 327 

Henfree v. Bromley ii- 700, 718 

Henkle K. Royal Ex ch Ins. Co. ii. 3.5* 

Henley v. Bai'ik ii- 797 

u. Soper ii- 689 



Henman v. Dickinson ii. 723 

Hennell v. ITairlamb ii. 745 

Henniker v. Henniker iii. 327 

V. Wigg ii. 633 

Henning's Case ii. 670 

Henop i). Tucker ii. 343 

Henricksou v. Margetson ii. 390 

Henridia v. Ayres ii. 349 

Henry Ewbank, The ii. 318, 319, 320, 

322, 412 

Henry, The ii. 277, 290, 322 

V. Goldney i. 34 ; ii. 725 

V. Lee i. 275 

V. Means iii. 94 

V. Nunn's heirs 1. 409, 416 

V. Sargeant ii. 592 

V. Staniforth ii. 359 

Henshaw v. Hunting ii. 728 

V. Kobins i. 582 

Hensly v. Baker i. 574 

Henson, ex parte iii. 134, 508 

V. Blackwell ii. 480 

Hentig v. Staniforth ii. 359 

Hepburn v. Auld i. 495 

ii. Dunlop iii. 398 

V. Sewell iii. 197 

Heran v. Hall i. 148 

Herbert, ar parte iii. 460, 468 

V. Cook ii. 609 

I'. Hallett , ii. 297, 389 

V. Herbert ii. 596 

V. Pigott ii. 715 

V. Turball i. 294 

Hercules, The ii. 346, 347 

Hercy v. Birch iii. 366 

Hergman v. Dettlebach i. 208 

Herlienrath v. Amer. Ins. Co. ii. 460 

Herlakenden's Case i. 512 

Herman v. Goodrich iii. 204 

Hem V. Nichols i. 73 

Hernamao o. Bawden ii. 340 

Heron v. Granger iii. 346 

Herrick v. Borst ii. 23, 24 

V. Carman i. 256 

V. Herrick ii. 700 

i;. Moore iii. 228 

V. Randolph iii. 544, 545 

Herries v. Jamieson ii. 636 

Herrin v. Butters ii. 44 ; iii. 37 

V. Libbey ii. 781 

Herring v. Boston Iron Co. ii. 548 

V. Hoppock i. 538 

V. Pollard iii. 222 

Herrison v. Guthrie iii. 515 

Hersey v. Merrimack Co. Ins. Co. ii. 369 

Hervey v. Hervey ii. 77 

Hersheld v. Adams ii. 167 

Hersom v. Henderson i. 590 

Hesoltine v. Higgers iii. 50 

Hesketh v. Blanchard i. 158 

V. Pawcett ii. 646 

Hess V. Werts i. 214 

Hesse v. Stevenson ii. 502 ; iii. 479 

Hessian u. Edward Howard, The ii. 319 

Heubner v. Eagle Ins. Co. ii. 394 

Hetli's Ex'r v. Wooldridge's Ex'r iii. 392 

Heudebourck ;;. Langton i. 125 

Hewctt V. Buck ii. 268 

Hewin v. Libbey ii. 784 

Hewison v. Guthrie iii. 246, 483 

Hewit V. Flexney .ii. 415 

V. Mantell iii. 469 

Hewitt V. Charier ii. 56 

V. Wilcox ii. 56 

Hey V. Moorhouse i. 439 

Heydon v. Heydon i. 207 ; iii. 281 

& Smith's Case iii. 202 

V. Williams iii. 475 

Heydon's Case i. 28 

Heyhoe v. Burge i. 160 

Heyliger v. N. Y. Ins. Co. ii. 327, 328 

Heyraan v. Neale iii. 13 

Heytle v, Logan in. 108 

Heyward's Case ii. 509 

Heywood «. Hildreth iii. 503 

V. Perrin ii. 501 

V. Wingate i. 253 

Hiatt y. Gilmer ii. 50 

Hibbard v. N. Y. & E. E. M. Co. ii. 230 

Hibbert v. Shee i. 495 

Hibblewhite v. McMorine i. 110, 291, 523, 

5.56 ; ii. 724 

Hibernia, The ii, 334, 344 

Hibshman v. Dullcban ii. 729 

Hickerson v. Benson ii. 757 

Hickey v. Burt i. 226; ii. 617 

Hickley v. F. &. M. Bank iii. 426 

Hickman v. Cox i. 155 

V. Thomas iii. 250 

Hickok V. Buck ii. 126, 128; iii. 201 

0. Hickock iii. 92 

Hicks ii. Brown iii. 443 

V. Cram ii. 794, 796 

V, Gleason ii. 727 

u. Hankin i. 43; iii. 12 

)•. Hinde i. 54, 253 

V. Hotchkiss iii. 438, 554 

V. Palington ii. 323 

u. Walker ii. 338 

Hide V. Petit ii. 689 

Higden v. Williamson iii. 471, 475 

Higginbottom, ex /jurte iii. 511 

Higgins V. Aguilar ii. 365 

t\ Breen ii. 46 

V. Emmons ii. 94, 652 

V. Livingstone i. 125 

V. Morrison i. 287 

V. Scott iii. LOG 

u. Senior i. 55, 62, 63, 64 

V. Watson i. 243 

Higginson v. Clowes in. 398, 415 

V. Dall ii. 363, 370, 384 

V. Kelly iii. 493 

f. Pomeroy ii. 375 



Higglnson v. Wold i. 563 

Highlander, The ii. 337, 339 

Highmore v. Molloy jii. 460 

Hight V. Eipley iii. 54 

Higinbothani v. Holme iii. 493 

Hiliirity, The ii, 283 

Hiklebi-and r. Fogle ii. 560 

Hildreth v. Pinkertoa Academy 1. 431 

Hill, ex parte iii. 505 

V. Anderson i. 322 

V. Andrus ii. 334 

V. Barclay iii. 372 

V. Bellows iii. 96 

V. Buckley iii. 382, 400 

II. Buckminster i. 256 

V. Calvin ii. 13, 721 

V. Chapman i. 237 

V. Dobie iii. 491 

V. Dunham ii. 763; 764 

V. Dunlap ii. 728 

V. Ely i. 256 

i;. Featherstonaugh i. 100, 116 

V. Golden Gate, The ii. 265, 300 

V. Gomme iii. 354, 359, 418 

V, Grange ii. 508 

V. Gray i. 579 

V. Green ii. 40, 678 

V. Henry iii. 92 

V. Hobart i. 539 ; u. 535, 656, 657, 

661 ; iii. 231 

V. Hooper iii. 36 

1). Humphreys ii. 184 

V. Idle ii. 305 

V. Kendall iii. 66, 70, 86 

V. Lafayette Ins. Co. ii. 435 

V. Manchester & S. W. Co. ii. 789 

V. Meeker iii. 151 

V. More ii. 708 

V. Patten ii. 363 ; iii. 297, 323 

V. Slocorabe iii. 343 

V. Smith i. 459 ; iii. 470, 479, 482, 496 

V. Thorn ii. 690 

V. Tucker i. 11, 23 

V. Voorhies i. 167 

V. West i. 366 ; ii. 791 

V. Wiggin i. 209 

Hillary v. Morris iii. 473 

Hillebrant v. Brewer i. 201 

Hiller v. English ii. 757, 763 

Hilliard v. Greenleaf iii. 437 

V. Richardson i. 105 

Hillier v. Alleghany Co. Ins. Co. ii. 447 

Hillraan v. Wilcox i. 581 

Hills V. Bannister i- 592 

V. Barnes ii- 723 

w. CroU iii. 408, 410 

V. Miller ii- 503 

Hill's Adm'r v. Mitchell i. 379 

Ilillyer v. Bennett i- 321 

Hilton V. Burley ii. 63e 

». Dinsmore ii. 9 

V. Eckersley i. 457 ; ii. 750, 753 

Hilton V. Houghton ii. 759, 764 

V. Shepherd i. 282 

Himely w. Stewart ii. 374 

V. S. Car. Ins. Co. ii. 402, 412 

Himes v. Barnitz ii. 742 

Hinchliffe v. Earl of Kinnoul ii. 534 

Hinckley v. Arey ii. 618, 686 ; iii. 12 

V. Southgate ii. 44 ; iii. 36 

Hind V. Holdship i. 468 

Hinde v. Gray ii. 750 

V. Whitehouse i. 479, 526, 537, 

541 ; iii. 11, 12, 44 

Hindle B. O'Brien iii. 126 

Hindley v. Westmeath i. 354, 356 

Hindmau v. Dill iii. 426, 448 

V. Langford iii. 25 

V. Shaw ii. 341 

Hinds V. Brazealle i. 409 

Hine v. AJlely i. 274 

Hinely v. Margaritz i. 295, 324, 329 

Hines v. Butler i. 446 

Hinesburgh v. Sumnet i. 456 

Hinkle v. Wanzer i. 224 

Hinkley v. Kowler i. 467, 408 

V. Marean ii. 590 ; iii. 436, 554 

Hinman v. Hapgood ii. 55 

V. Judson i. 569 

V. Moulton i. 444 

Hinsdale i'. Bank of Orange i. 292 

Hinsdell o. Weed ii. 204 

Hinton, ex parte iii. 493 

V. Acraman iii. 506 

V. Dibbin ii. 248 

V. Locke ii. 539, 544, 547 

Hitch V. Davis i. 235 

Hitchin v. Groom ii. 493, 560 

Hixon V. Hixon iii. 217 

Hitchcock y. Aicken ii. 6K/ 

V. Coker i. 436 ; ii. 750 

V. Humphrey ii. 23 

V. Huat i. 592 

.;. St. John i. 1 79 

Hoadley v. Bliss i. 277 

V. M'Laine iii. 14 

Hoag V. McGinnis iii. 158, 160 

Hoagland v. Moore ii. 523 

Hoard v. Garner iii. 192 

Hoare «. Dresser i. 62 

!;. Graham i S 

Hobart v. Drogan ii. 318. 3J9 

V. Norton ii. 4n 

Hobbs V. Hull i. 300 

V. Memphis Ins. Co. ii. 354 

V. Norton ii. 796 

Hobby V. Dana ii. +24 

Hoblins v. Kimble iii. 166 

Hobson V. Watson li. 56 

Hoby V. Roebuck iii. 34 

Hochster v. De Latour ii. 667, 676 

Hodgdon v. Hodgdon iii. 103 

Hodge V. Coombs i. 47 

V. Filhs i. 271 



Horlge V. Manley 

iii. 73, 76 

Hodgedon v. Hubbard 

ii. 786 

Hodges V. Dawes 

i. 161 

V. Eastman 

i. 221 

V. Hodges 

i. 352 

V. Holeman 

iii. 513 

„. Horsfall 

iii. 387 

V. King 

iii. 158 

V. Lovatt 

iii. 123 

V. Saunders 

i. 4.38 

V. Sliules 


249, 291 

Hodgkins v. Bond 

iii. 10 

Hodgkinson v. Fletcher 


361, 362 

V. Fcmie 



Hodgman v. Smith 

i. 160 

Hodgson, ex parte i. 211 ; iii. 465, 493 

D.Anderson i. 69, 218 

V. Bell iii. 186 

V. Davies ii. 537, 677 

V. Dexter i. 124 

v. Glover ii. 370 

V. Hodgson ii. 564 

V. Le Bret iii. 41 

V. Loy i. 598, 601 

V. Marine Ins. Co. ii. 369 

V. Richardson ii. 402 

V. Shaw ii. 56 

V. Temple ii. 753 

Hodnett !■. Tatnm i. 52 

Hodsden v. Harridge ii. 668 

Ilodsman u. Grissel ii. 318 

Hodson, in re ii. 707 

V. Terrill ii. 627 

Hoey V. Fui-man ii. 732 

Hoffman v. Brown ii. 713 

V. Carrow i. 520 

V. Coombs ii. 26 

I. Gold i. 403 

V. Noble iii. 254 

V. Pitt i. 530 

V. Western Ins. Co. ii. 4.).0 

Hoffnung, The ii. 305 

Hog V. Gouldney ii. 416 

Hogaboom v. Herrick ii. 25 

Hogan V, Del. Ins. Co. ii. 354 

V. Reynolds i. 182 

Hoge V. Hoge i. 438 

Hogg V. Horner ii. 414 

V. Snaith i. 42 

Hoggart V. Seott iii. 381 

Hoggins V. Gordon ii. 55, 699 

Hogins V. Plympton i. 582, 590 

Hogue I'. Davis i. 36 

Hoit V. Hodge ii. 756 

V. Undorhill i. 324 

Iloitt V. Holcomb ii. 784 

Holbird v. Anderson iii. 427 

Holbrook v. Allen i. 269 

V. Araer. Ins. Co. ii. 450, 460 

V. Armstrong iii. 35, 39 

V. Baker i. 670 

V. BuUard ii. 52 

Holbrook v. Burt li. 677 

V. Foss iii. 507 

V. Lackey ii. 739 

V. Utica& Schen. E. R. Co. ii. 225 

V. Waters iii. 482 

V. Wight i. 98 ; iii. 265 

Holcomb V. Stimpson ii. 682 

Holcoinbe v. Hewson i. 589 

Holcroft V. Barber ii. 32 

V. Dickenson ii. 60, 61 

Holdcn V. Dakin i. 577, 580, 584 

V. Taylor i. 500 

Holder v. Borden ii. 317 

c. Dickeson ii. 71 

Holdemess v. Shackels ii. 270 ; iii. 281 

Holding V. Pigott i. 510; ii. 538 

Holdsworth v. Hunter iii. 305 

Molenian o. P. H. White, The ii. 271 

Holford V. Blatchford iii. 134, 136, 144 

V. Hatch i. 231 ; iii. 467 

Holker v. Parker i. 117, 1 18 ; ii. 689 

Boll V. Griffin ii. 142 

I: Hadley iii. 95 

Holland, ex parte iii. 476 

V. Duffin iii. 344 

V. Holland ii. 85 

V. Pelham ii. 478; iii. 140 

u. Turner i. 270, 279 

Hollingswoith v. Napier i. 603, 607 ; 

iii. 488 

HoUingworth u. Tooke i. 98 

HoUis V. Claridge iii. 270 

V. Morris ii. 782 

V. Poole i. 514 

Hollistar V. Hollister ii. 605 

w. Nowlen ii. 199, 220, 239, 252 

Holloway v. Hampton iii. 33 

V. Lowe ii. 766 

Holly V. Rathbone i. 221 

Holman v. Johnson ii. 570, 746, 753, 754 

V. Loynes i. 86 

Holmer «. Viiier iii. 523 

Holmes, In the matter of iii. 446 

i>. Blogg i. 320, 327, 334 

V. Buckley i. 232 

V. Charlestown Ins. Co. ii. 434, 


V. Goring ii. 534 

f. Higgins i. 146, 164 

V. Holmes iii. 547 

V. Hoskins iii. 41 

V. Kej-rison i. 266 ; iii. 90 

V. Knights iii. 22 

V. Misroon iii. 106 

u. Onion i. 103 

V. Porter 1. 162 

V. Remsen ii. 571, 607 ; iii. 451, 

453, 454, 455 

V. Rhodes iii. 186 

V. Robinson ii. 735 

V. Sinnickson iii, 226 

u. Sixsmith iii. 344 



Holmes v. Tremjier 

i. 513 

Hope Ins. Co. !>. Brolaskey 

ii. 437 

V. United Ins. Co. 

ii. 359 

V. Liddell 

iu. 270 

V. Weed 

i. 32 


ii. 318 

V. West 

i. 260 

Hopewell v. De Pinna 

ii. 484 

v. Williams 


144, 146 

Hopkins u. Appleby 

i. 594 

V. "Williamsou 

i. 32, 34 

V. A. & St. L. R. R 

. Co. ii. 225 

Holridge v. Gillespie 

i. 135 

V. Beebe 

i. 245 

Hoist V. Pownal 

i. 596 

f. Crittenden 

iii. 105 

Holt V. Bodey 

ii. 26 

CI. Forsyth 

ii. 266, 334 

V. Brien 

i. 347 

V. Grazebrook 

iii. 230 

V. Holt 

iii. 354 

V. Grey 

iii. 425 

V. Ward Clarencieux 

i. 330, 4.52 ; 

I'. Lacouture 

i. 63 

ii. 62 

u. Lee 

iii. 2a 1 

Holtham a. Ryland 

ii. 673 

0. Logan 

i. 449, 473 

Holyland v. DeMendez 



; iii. 493 

V. Megguire 

ii. 740 

Holyoko V. Haskins 

ii. 582 

V. Melmffy 

i. 65, 68 

Homer v. Asliford 



; ii. 750 

V. Rifhardson 

ii. 11 

V. Dorr 

ii. 359 

V. Smith 

i. 189 

V. Thwing 



; ii. 127 

v. Taiiqueray 

i. 580 

V. Wood 

i. 185 

u. Thompson 

i. 569 

Homes v. Crane i. 530 


; "• 

113, 281 

Hopkinson v. Lee 

i. 22 

V. Dana 

i. 453 

Hopkirk v. Page 

i. 278 

V. Smith 

i. 283 

Hopley V. Dufresne 

i. 271 

V. Smyth 

i. 258 

Hopper V. Sisk 

ii. 775 

Hone u. Mutual Safety Ins. Co. ii. 

357, 540 

Hopping I'. Quin 

i. 116 

Honeyman v. Marryatt 



iii. 357 

Hopson v. Boyd 

i. 387 

Honner o. 111. Central R. R. 


ii. 43 

V. Trevor 

iii. 356 

V. Morton 

iii. 482 

Horbach v. Elder 

i. 32 

Honnick v. Phoenix Ins. 


ii. 357 

Here v. Whitmore 

ii. 397, 400 

Honyman v. Campbell 

ii. 63 

Horn V. Horn 

ii. 735 

Hood V. Farnstock 


i. 75 

V, Ivy 

i. 138 

V. Manhattan Ins. 


ii. 357, 361, 

V. Nason 

iii. 507 


V. Roberts 

ii. 710 

V. N. Y. & New Haven R 


Ilombuckle v. Hornbury 

i. 361 




; ii. 217 

Hornby y. Lacy i. 

467; ii. 614 

V. Riley 

ii. 739 

Horncastle v. Farran 

i. 601 

Hood's Estate 

ii. 579 

V, Haworth 

ii. 359 

Hoodly V. McLaine 

i. 525 

Horner v. Graves 

ii. 750 

Hooe V. Gvovermau 

ii. 301 

V. Fish 

iii. 99 

V. Oxley 

i. 4.1 

V. Flintoff 

iii. 162 

Hook V. Hook 

ii. 798 

V. Leeds 

ii. 797 

I). Kinnear 

iii. 354 

V. Marsh.all 

i. 384 

V. Moreton 

ii. 339 

Horneyer v. Lushington 

ii. 359 

Hoop, The 

ii. 327 

Hornsby v. Lee 

iii. 481 

Hooper, ex parte 



394, .506 

Horrcl v. M' Alexander 

ii. 695 

V. Brundage 

iii. 270 

Horsburgh v. Orme 

ii. 618 

V. Edwards 

ii. 761 

Horsefall v. Mather i. 

503; ii. 127 

V. Goodwin 

i. 235 

Horsfall v. Fauntleioy 

ii. 614 

V. Perley 

ii. 339 

V. Handly 

i. 79 

i;. Pierce 

ii. 700 

Horfcford v. Wright 

iii. 226 

V. Smith 

iii. 485 

Horsley v. Bell 

i. 124 

V. Stephens 

iii. 74 

V. Rush 

ii. 301 

V. Tuckerman 

iii. 448 

Hort V. Norton 

. 446 ; ii. 46 

V. Williams 


246, 247 

Horton's Appeal 

i. 197 

Hoover v. Pierce 



; ii. 782 

Horton v. Benson 

ii. 696 

Hopcraft v. Hickman ii. 



; iii. 355 

V. Home 

ii. 592 

V. Keys 

ii. 797 

V. Stanley 

ii. 708 

Hope, ex parte 

iii. 506 

Hosack V. Weaver 

i. 520 

V. Booth 

iii. 506 

Hosea v. McCrory 

ii. 182 

V. Cust 

i. 186 

Hosford V. Nichols 

i'. 571, 586 

u. Dido, The 

ii. 318 

Hoskins v. Duperoy 

iii. 505 

V. Hayley 

i. 571 

V. Miller 




Hoskins v. Paul 

i. 518 

V. Pickersgill 

ii. 361 

Hosmer v. Beebe 

i. 95 

Hostler's Caso 

ii. 139 

Hotham v. East India Co. 

ii. 494 

Houdlette c. Tallman 

i. 528 

Hough V. Edwards 

iii. 269 

V. Evans 

ii. 776 

V. May 

ii. 623 

V. Richardson 

i. 479 

V. Warr 

ii. 31 

Houghtaling v. Ball 

ii. 570 

u. Houghtaling 

iii. 34 

V. Marvin 

i. 72 

Houghton V. Adams 

ii. 622 

V. Houghton 

ii. 701 

V. Manuf. Ins. Co. ii. 405, 430, 

432, 434 

V. Matthews i. 92 ; iii. 258, 259, 


V. Maynard iii. 443 

V. Page ii. 570; iii. 114 

Houlditch V. Cauty i. 283 

v. Donegal ii. 608 

V. Milne iii. 25 

Houliston V. «inyth i. 352, 353 

Housatonic Bank v. Laflin i. 280, 284 

House K. Fort i. 576, 580, 581 

V. Palmer ii. 508 

V. Schooner Lexington ii. 195 

Houser v. Reynolds i. 323 

Houston V. Pollard ii. 692 

V. Robertson ii. 738 

Hovenden r. Annesley ii. 798 

Hovey v. American Ins. Co. ii. 430 

u. Blanehard i. 52, 76 

Hovil V. Pack i. 52 

Howw. Camp iii. 426 

V. Kcmball ii. 6, 7; iii. 16 

V, Weldon i. 493 

I/. Whitebanck i. 83 

V. Whitfield i. 83 

Howard v. Ames i. 255 ; iii. 237 

V. Babcock ii. 108 

fi. Bailie . i. 42 

V. Burgen iii. 38 

V. Cadwalader ii. 780 

V. Chapman ii. 616 

V. Cobb ii. 288 

o. Cooper ii. 691 

V. Crovvtlicr iii. 497 

y. Doolittle i. 501 

V. Edgell ii. 689; iii. 361 

V. Ellis iii. 358, 373 

V. Grover ii, 54 

V. Hoey i. 587 

V. Hopkyns iii. 356 

V. Hudson ii. 794, 800 

V. Ives i. 280 

V. Jemmett iii. 468, 482 

V Kentucky & Louisville M. 

Ins. Co. iii. 553 

Howard v. Macondray ii. 305 

V. Miner i. 534 ; ii. 650 

V. OdoU ii. 275, 280 

t/. Priest i. 151 ; iii. 473 

V. Prince iii. 336 

V. Rogers iii. 390 

V. Sexton ii. 688 

V. Shepherd i. 289 

V. Tucker ii. 800; iii. 192 

u. Whetstone i. 352 

V. Williams i. 530 

V. Wissmaa ii. 291 

Howard's Case ii. 365 

Howden v. Haigh iii. 523 

V. Simpson i. 456 

Howe V. Bradley i. 269 ; ii. 636 

V. Handley i. 12; iii. 203 

V. Huntington ii. 535, 661, 662 

V. Merrill i. 264 

V. Nickels ii. 13, 15 

<j. O'Mally i. 448 

V. Palmer iii. 41, 42, 45 

V. Sheppard ii. 738 

V. Synge i. 458 

V. Thompson iii. 86 

V. Ward i. 36 

Howell V. Burnet iii. 96 

V. Cincinnati Ins. Co. ii. 434 

V, Edgar iii. 426 

V. Harding ii. 736 

u. Harvey i. 195 

V. J.ackson ii. 150 

V. Mclvcrs i. +45 

V. Young iii. 92 

Howes, in re iii. 504 

V Barker i. 430 

V. Bigolow i. 344, 345 

Howland v. Carson i. 267 

V. Comra. Ins. Co. ii. 358, 517 

V, Greenway ii. 295 

V. Harris i. 553 

c. Mar. Ins. Co. h. 391 

Howlet r. Strickland ii. 734, 740 

Howson V. Hancock ii. 627, 747 

llowton V. Frearson ii. 534 

Hoxie V. Carr i. 149, 150, 153 

V. Pacific Ins. Co. ii. 410 

Hoy V. Rogers i. 343 

Hoyle V. Stowe i. 323, 326, 328, 3i9 

Hoyt V. Bridgewater Co. iii. 134 

V. Byrnes ii. 622, 640 

V. French ii. 26 

V. N. Y. Ins. Co. ii. 479 

V. Wildfire ii. 34, 341 

Hubbard v. Charlestown Branch R. 

R. Co. iii. 103 

V. Coolidge i. 436, 478 

II. Cumm'ings i. 321, 327, 328 

V. Glover ii. 403 

I'. Hamilton Bank iii. 514 

c. Jackson i. 262 ; iii. 322 

u. Morgan i. 216 



Hubbard v. Norton 

iii. 228 

Humble v. Mitchell 

iii. 50 

Hubbell V. Carpenter 

ii. 27 

Hume V. BoUand 

i. 185 

V. Cramp 

iii. 524 

V. Hord 

i. 369 

Hubborsty v. Ward 

ii. 177, 290 

V. Peploe 

ii. 637 

Hubbert v. Bordeu 

i. 55 
ii. 591 

Humphrey v. Arabin 

ii. 480 

Huber V. Steiiier 

V. Pale 

u. 536, 548, 549 

Hubert v. Moreau 

iii. 5 

u. Douglass 

i. 316 

V. Turner 

iii. 5, 11 

V, Phinnoy 

iii. 223 

Hubgh V. New Orleans E 

R. ii. 43 

Humphreys v. Comline 

i. 581, 588 

Huckle V. Money 

ii. 172, 175 

V. Gardner 

ii. 689 

Huckmau v. Fernie i. 48, 

60, 74 ; ii. 471, 

D. Guillow 

ii. 723 


V. Jones 

iii. 70 

Hucks V. Thornton 

ii. 364, 407 

u. Union Ins. Co. ii. 384, 

Huddorsfield Canal Co. v. 

Buckley ii. 735 


Huddleston v. Briscoe 

iii. 349 

Humphries v. Blight's Assignees iii. 468, 

Huddlestone's Case 

i. 72 


Hudgins v. Wright 

i. 399 

V. Chastain 

i. 194 

Hudnal v. Wilder 

i. 235, 530 

Hundley v. Webb 

i. 530 

Hudnall I'. Scott 

ii. 742 

Hunsden v. Cheyney 

ii. 72 

Hudson V. Baxendale 

ii. 211, 291 

Hunt, ex parte 

i. 312 

u. Bdtoa 

ii. 400 

V. Adams 

ii. 6, 719 

V. Clementson 

ii. 557 

V. Bate 

i. 445 

V. Granger 

i. 97 ; ii. 743 

V. Bell 

ii. 756 

V. Guestler 

ii. 278 

V. Bridghara 

ii. 24, 26 ; iii. 81 

V. Harrison « 

ii. 392 

V. Cleveland, The 

ii. 294 

V. Hudson 

i. 132 

V. DeBlaquire 

i. 353, 361 

V. Johnson 

ii. 614 

V. Fish 

i. 281 

V. Revett 

i. Ill 

V. Frost 

ii. 554 

V. Robinson 

i. 12 

V. Haskell U. 201, 

207,298; iii. 196, 

V. Tenny 

iii. 104 

236, 253 

Huey V. Pinney 

ii. 23 

V. Hecht 

iii. 46 

Huff V. Nickerson 

i. 470; ii. 511 

V. Hort 

ii. 563 

Huffman v. Hulbort 

ii. 23, 24 

V. Maybee 

i. 278 

Hugg V. Augusta Ins. Co. 

ii. 289, 298, 382 

I/. Moore 

ii. 779 

Hughes, ex parte 

V. Hughes 

i. 87 ; iii. 465 

V. Nevers 

iii. 103 

i. 308 

V. Nugent 

i. 281 

V. Humphreys 

ii. 51 

V. Otis Company 

ii. 34, 36, 740 

V. Kerney 

iii. 277, 278 

u. Peake 

i. 330, 452 ; ii. 62 

V. Kiddell 

i. 262 

u. Rousmanier i 

69, 71, 72; iii. 

V. Large 

i. 256 


V. Lenny 

iii. 256 

V. Royal Ex. Ass. Co. i. 187 ; ii. 661 

V. Morris 

iii. 391 

V. Silk 

11. 679 

V. Stubbs 

iii. 360 

V Stevens 

iii. 336 

€. Wheeler 

ii. 625; iii. 116 

V. United States 

ii. 24, 26 

Huggeford v. Ford 

iii. 203 

Hunter v. Agnew 

i. 295, 313 

Huguenin v. Basely 

i. 86 

V. Bennison 

ii. 697 

V. Ray ley 

ii. 472, 770 

V. Boucher 

i. 354, 355 

Haling v. Craig 

ii. 673 

V. Daniel 

iii. 383 


i\ Hugg 

ii. 742 

I!. Fry 

ii. 302 

Hull V. Blake 

ii. 607 

V. Fulcher 

i. 418 

t-, Caldwell 

iii. 105 

V. General Mut. 

Ins. Co. of 

1/. Clark 

iii. 196 

N. Y. 

ii. 517 

V. Connolly 
V. Cooper 

i. 311 

V. Hudson Buir Iron Machine 

ii. 412 


i. 67, 74 

V. Hull 

ii. 605 

V. Hunt 

i. 32 

V. Peer 

iii. 378 

V. Hunter 

i. 235 

V. Pickersgill 

i. 49, 51, .53 

V. Jameson 

i. 60 

Hull Dock Co. V. Browne 

ii. 365 

V. Leathley 

ii. 362, 414 

Hull of a New Ship 

ii. 117, 119 

ti. Le Conte 

i. 502 

Hulle V. Hcightman 

ii. 41 

V. Miller 

i. 54 

Ilulme V. Muggleston 

iii. 483, 515 

V. Osterhondt 

i, 515 

Haiuble V Hunter 

i. 54 

V. Parker 

1. 52, 110 



Hunter v. Potts ii. 308 ; iii. 452 

V Prinsep ii. 278, 363; iii. 19.5 

V. Rice i. 531 

?'. Wright ii. 359 

Hunter, Tlie ii. 282 

Huiitgate V. Mease ii. 700 

Huntingdon v. Knox i. 55, 62 

Huntington v. American Bank ii. 638 

V. Fincli ii. 720 

V. Gilmore i. 235, 237 

V. Hall i. 575 

Huntley ;;. Bacon iii. 172 

V. Bulwer i. 1 16 

V. Sanderson iii. 91 

Huntly V. Waddell i. 574 

Huntress v. Patten iii. 1 22 

The ii. 296 

Hard v. Brydges iii. 460 

V. Fogg ii. 736 

V. Little i. 285 

V. West ii. 133, 135 

Hnrlburt i>. Pacific Ins. Co. ii. 745 

Hurley v. Jlihvard ii. 327 

Huron, The, u. Simmons ii. 271 

Hurry v. John & Alice, The ii. 281 

u. Hurry ii. 281, 300 

V. Mangles i. 603 

V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. ii. 367 

Hursh V. Byers ii. 151 

Huist V. Bambidge ii. 692 

V. Gwennap iii. 469, 502 

V. Hill i. 194 

u. Holding i. 99 

V. Usborne ii. 302 

Hurtin v. Phoenix Ins. Co. ii. 402, 403 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 299 

Husband v. Davis ii. 616 

Husbands v. Smith's Adm'r i. 1 25 

Huscombe ". Standing i. 395 

Hussey v. Christie ii. 334 

V. Crickett ii. 755 

V. Freeman i. 279 

V. Jewett i. 298 

V. Roundtree ii. 47 

V. Thornton i. 527 

Hustler, ex parte iii. 265 

Huston V. Cantril i. 431 

V. Moorhead iii. 143 

Hutcheson v. Bhikcman i. 475, 484 

Hutching v. Adams iii. 166 

V. Bank of Tenn. i. 169 

V. Brackett ii. 144 

V. Gilchrist i. 530 

V. Hudson i. 169 

V. Ok-utt i. 601 

t. Riddle ii. 736 

V. Scott ii. 719; iii. 346 

V. Turner i. 186 

Hutctinson v. Bowker i. 475, 477 

V. Coombs ii. 344 

c. Gascoigne iii. 460 

V. Howard iii. 270 

Hutchinson i'. Pettes iii. 269 

V. Smith i. 183, 212 

V. Sturges ii. 734 

Hutchison o. Bowker ii. 351, 492, 496, 

, 535 

V. Hosmer iii. 134, 135 

V. Moody ii. 26 

V. Morloy ii. 778 

V. Reid ii. 739 ; iii. 211 

u. York, Newcastle, and 

Berwick Ry. Co. ii. 43 

Huttman !i. Boulnois ii. 32 

Huthacher v. Harris i. 5;!j 

Hutton V. Bragg ii. 301 

I'. Eyre i. 27 ; ii. 713 

V. Mansell ii, 62 

V. Warren i. 505, 510; ii. 337, 

340, 547 

Hvat V. Hare i. 184 

Hyatt V. Boyle i. 561, 582, 584 

Hyde v. Brashear i. 201 

V. Cookson ii. 134, 136 

V. Johnson iii. 79 

(,-. Louisiana Ins. Co. ii. 386 

u. Paige , i. 63 

V. Stone i. 345 ; iii. 106 

V. Trent & Mersey Navigation 

ii. 141, 183, 191,295, 538 

V. Wolf i. 63 

Hyleing v. Hastings . iii. 62 

Hylton L\ Brown iii. 221 

Hynds v. Schenectady Co. Ins. Co. ii. 426, 

Ilyne v. Dewdncy i. 248 

Hynes v. Stewart i. 203 

Hysinger v. Baltzells iii. 95 

Hyslop V. Clarke iii. 426 

c\ Jones i. 280 

Icard V. Goold ii. 340 

Ide V. Pass. Riv. R. R. Co. i. 291 

u. Gray ii 772 

V. Stanton iii. 14, 17 

Idle y. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. ii. 276, 277, 


r. Thornton i. 555 

Iggulden r. May iii. 368 

Iley !'. Frankenstein i. 539 

Illidge r. Goodwin ii. 230 

Ills. Central R. R. Co. o. Cox ii. 43 

Illsley V. Jewett ii. 624 ; iii. 74 

Imlay v. EUefsen ii. 590 ; iii. 436 

u. Huntington i. 369 

V. Wikoflf ii. 694 

Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co. u. 

London Gas Light Co. iii. 99 

Independent Ins, Co. v. Agnew ii. 447 

Indiana Ins. Co. o. Coquillard ii. 419 

The ii. 311 



Indianapolis Insurance 

Company v. 

Ives !'. 


i. 81 


iii. 116 



i. 454 

Industry, The 

ii. .318 


V. Conington 

i. 117 

Infanta, Tlie 

ii. 3.37 

Ivey V 


iii. 172 

Ingalls V. Bills 

ii. 222, :;a7 

Izou V. 


i. 501 

V. Cole 

ii. 496 

(/. Lee i 


; iii. 144, 147 

V. Lord 

iii. 196 


Innate v. Christie 

ii. 167 

Inge i: Bond 

i. 575 

Jack V 


iii. 231 

Ingersol v. Van Bokolin 

iii. 201 

Jacks V. Bell 

iii. 174 

V. Jones 

ii. 71 

u. Moore 

ii. 742 

Ingledew v. Douglas 

i. 313 


. Kichols 

iii. 114 

Inglis V. Haigh 

iii. 87, 8S, 90 

Jackson, ex parte i 

190; iii. 463 

V. Vaux 

ii. 366 

V. Alexander 

i. 168 

Ingraham v. Albee 

ii. 346 


V. Ambler 

ii. 601 

V. Geyer 


453, 455, 456 

V. Baker 

i. 95; iii. 162 

V. Gifbesh 

i. 434 

V. Bartlett 

ii. 614 

V. Grigg 

iii. 449 

V. Blodgett ii. 

504, 506, 509 

... Hall 

ii. 620 

V. Bowen 

iii. 120 

<'. South Carolina 

Ins. Co. 

V. Bridges 

i. 403 

ii. 405 

V. Bryan 

i. 513 

V. Wheeler 


275 ; iii. 426 

u. Bull 

ii. 791 

Ingram v. Ingram 

i. 71 

u. Bullock 

i. 419 

II. Lawsou 

iii. 184 

V. Burchin 

i. 325, .328 

o. Webb 

ii. 697 

«. Carpenter 

i. 325, 328 

Inman v. Foster 

iii. 168 

i>. Catlin 

iii. 12 

Innel v. Newman 

ii. 617 

v. Charnock 

ii. 326 

Innes z\ Stejjlicnson 

ii. 616 

V, Cobbin 

i. 473, 504 

Ins. Co. of Penn. v. Smith 

ii. 351 

V. Cocker 

iii. 355 

L\ Jams 

ii. 419, 487 

V. Cornell 

i. 212 

i: Southard 


422, 432, 434 

V. Covert 

iii. 54 

V. Updegraff 

ii. 438, 441 

V. Craig 

ii. 558 

Iowa College v. Hill 

i. 259 

V. Cummings 

iii. 251 

Ipswich Manufacturing Company v. 

V. Davis 

ii. 797 


u. 715, 716 

V. Delong 

ii. 692 

Irby V. Wilson 

ii. 601 

V. Dui M.iire 

ii. 8, 73 

Ireland's Case 

in. 1.57 

V. Dunsbagh 

ii. 503 

Ireland v. Kip 

i. 270 

V. Eddy 

i. 508 

Irish V. Cutter 

i. 245 

V. Farmers Ins. Co 

ii. 372 

Ii'vine V. Crockett 

i. 329 

V. Filz.^immons 

i. 397 

u. Kirkpatrick 


; ii. 776, 782 

r. Galloway 

i. 475 

V. Stone 

i. 455; ii. 17 

d. Gilibs ij.'Oshom 

ii. 723 

V. Withers 

i. 272 

V. Green 

i. 324 

Irving V. Greenwood 

ii. 66, 71 

V. Henry 

iii. 120 

V. JVTanning 

ii. 385 

V. Hubble 

ii. 790 

11. Motley 

i. 74 

17. Hudson 1 

. 287 ; ii. 503 

V. Thomas 

1. 578; ii. 778 

u. Ireland 

ii. 514 

V. Veitch 

iii. 70, 74, 99 

V. Irvin 

iii. 463 

Irons V. Smallpiece 

i. 235 

V. Jackson ii. 601, 

605 ; iii. 396 

Isaac V. Clark 

ii. 96 

V. Jacob 

ii. 614 

V. West 

i. 400, 421 

V. Jacoby 

ii. 723 

Isabella Jacobina, The 

ii. 305 

0. Johnson 

iii. 95 

Isbell V. Norvell 

ii. 127 

V. Jones 

iii. 120 

Isberg V. Bowden 


734, 743, 745 

V. King 

iii. 461 

Island City, The 

ii. 316, 322 

V. Lamphire 

iii. 534 

Lsler V. Baker 

i. 199 

V. Lawrence 

ii. 508 

Israel v. Benjamin 

iii. 334 

0. Lervey 

i. 414 

V. Clark 

ii. 227 

V. Lever 

iii. 473 

Itinerant, The 

ii. 309 

V. Ligon 

iii. 400 

Ivans V. Draper 


V. Lomas 

ii. 679 

Ives's Case 

ii. 515 

V. Loomis 

iii. 22] 



;■. Lowe 

iii. 4 


V. Griffin 

i. 599 

II. Lunu 


V. Jones 

ii. 182 

V. Malin 

ii. 719 

V. Le Roy 

ii. 52 

V. Mass. Ins. 


ii. 372, 439, 
431, 457 

V. McCredie 
V. Morgan 

i. 58 
i. 436 

V. Mayo 

i. 324, 329, 468 

u. O'DriscoU 

ii. 54 

V. Murray 

ii. 791 

V. Patten 

iii. 8 

V. Packard 

iii. 120 

V. Pawnee, The 

ii. 272 

V. Packer 

i. 272 

i: Raggett 

ii. 736 

V. Parks 

i. 359 

V. Shore 

i. 495 

V. Parkhurst 

ii. 549, 789 

V. StuU 

iii. 553, 557 

V.' Pierce 

iii. 59 

V. Williams i. 449 ; 

iii. 15, 16, 75 

V. Ransom 

ii. 556 

Jameson v. Swinton 

i. 282, 284 

V. Reeves 

ii. 506 

Jamey v. Columbia Ins 


ii. 278 

V. Richards 

i. 275 

Jamieson, in re 

ii. 707 

V. Robinson 

i. 163; ii. 266 

Jamison v. Brady 

ii. 738 

V. Rogers 

ii. 173 

V. Cosby 

ii. 17 

V. Sclioonmaker 

ii. 357 



ii. 282 

V. Sedgwick 

i. 203 


!'. Whitbread 

i. 155 

V. Sill 

ii. 549 

Janet Mitchell, The 

ii. 318 

V. Stackhouse ii. 502, 713, 714 

V. Stevens ii. 502, 791 

i;. Stewart i. 113. 

V. Turner iii. 226 

V. Union Bank ii. 104 

V. Van Dalfsen i. 88 
V. Vanderhayden i. 366; ii. 791 

V. Walker i. 459 

V. Walsh i. 88 

V. Wetherill i. 581 

V. Wheat iii. 95 

V. Wilcox ii. 777 

v- Winslow ii. 790 

V. Wood iii. 221 

V. Yabsley ii. 696 
V. York & Cumberland R. R. 

Co. i. 291 

V. ii. 166 

Jacky V. Butler i. 207 

Jacob V. Kirk iii. 1 4 

V. Lindsay ' iii. 348 

The ii. 283 

Jacobs V. Adams iii. 103 

V. Featherstone i. 366 

V, Latour iii. 244 

V. Locke iii. 382 

Jaeobson v. Le Grange ii. 54 

0. Williams iii. 472, 475, 477, 


Jacomb v. Harwood i. 26 

Jaggers v. Binnings ii. 270 

James v. Attwood ii. 707 

V. Bixby ii. 46 

V. Blanvelt iii. 328 

11. Campbell iii. 167 

V. Catherwood ii. 570 

V. Chalmers i. 290 

V. Cotton ii. 678 

II. David ii. 683 

V. Dowel ii. 725 

V. Emery i. 14, 15, 16, 17 

V. Fulcrod i. 448 

Jaques v. Marquand i. 182, 183 

V. Methodist Church i. 368 

ti. Todd i. 40 

V. Withy ii. 735 

Jarman v. Patterson i. 399 

V. Wooloton iii. 499 

Jarmaia v. Algar iii. 23 

Jarvis v. Brooks i. 151, 212 

V. Chappie ii. 743, 744 

V. Davis i. 530 

(^. Peck i. 45S; ii. 751 

V. Rogers ii. 118. 120; iii. 202 

V. Wilkins iii. 16 

Jarvis' Appeal iii. 115 

Jay V. Almy ii. 345 

Jee i,-. Thurlow i. 358, 360 

Jeiferson v, Adams iii. 172, 174 

V. Washington ii. 580 

Co. Bank v. Chapman ii. 742 

Ins. Co. II. Cotheal ii. 421, 424, 


JeflFery v. Walton ii. 553, 555 

Jefferys v. Gurr i. 470 

V. Jefferys iii. 363 

JefFord ». Ringgold i. 329 

Jeffrey v. Bigelow i. 73 

Jeffries v. G. W. R. R. Co. ii. 681 

Jefts V. York i. 68 

Jelliet V. Broade ii. 748 

Jemison v. Blowers iii. 524 

Jencks v. Coleman ii. 225 

Jendwine o Slade i. 580 

Jenkins v. Blizard i. 169; iii. 298 

V. Brewster i. 230 

V. Eldridgo iii. 29 

V. Gillespie i. 117; ii. 689 

V. Heycock ii. 410 

V. Hooker i. 225 

V. Hopkins iii. 229 

V. Hutchinson i. 68 

V. Parkinson iii. 353 

V. Pickett ii. 18/ 



Jenkins v. Quincy Ins. Co. ii. 433 

V. Eeynolds iii. 15, 16 

Jenks V. Lewis ii. 345 

Jenkyns v. Brown i. 605 

V. Usborne i. 290, 601 ; ii. 290 ; 

iii. 488 

Jenness v. Bean i. 2.59 

V. Emerson i. 309 

Jenney v. Aldon i. SlO 

V. Lesdemier i. 1 1 8 

Jennings v. Brougliton iii. 414 

V. Brown i. 432, 436 

V. Camp ii. 36, .524 

V. Clienango Co. Ins. Co. ii. 401, 

422, 430, 437 

V. Estes i. 176 

V. Gage i. 521 

V. Gratz i. 582 

V. Ins. Co. ii. 282 

V. Johnson iii. 204 

t. Maddock - iii. 172 

0. Merrill i. 93 

V. Newman i. 129 

V. Pitman i. 315; ii. 50 

V. Roberts i. 283, 284 

V. Rundall i. 316 

Jennison v. Parker ii. 100 

V. Stafford i. 441 

Jenys v. Fawler i. 264 

Jeremy v. Gooehman i. 446 

Jerome v. Whitiyjy i. 24? 

Jerusalem, The ii. 260, 283 

Jervoise v. Silk i. 308 

Jesse V. Roy i. 390 ; ii. 338 

Jesse! v. Williamsburgh Ins. Co. i. 227 

Jeune v. Ward i. 293 

Jewell V. ii. 789 

Jewett V. Cornforth i. 35 

V. Doekray i. 227 

V. Miller i. 88 ; ii. 793 

V. Preston iii. 473, 478 

V. Stevens i. 175 

o. Warren 1. 444 ; iii. 42, 43 

Jewitt V. Wadleigh i. 118 

Jewry v. Busk ii. 55 

Jewson V. Moulson i. 342 ; iii. 475, 481 

Jodderell v. Cowell iii. 492 

Jodrell V. Jodrell iii. 41 8 

Joel V. Morrison ii. 230 

Johan & Siegmund, The ii. 267 

Johann Friedrich, The ii. 313 

Johannes, The ii. 318 

Johannes Christoph, The . ii. 334 

John Perkins, The ii. 316, 317 

Johns V. Dod^worth i. 28 

V. Simons i. 78 

V. Stevens ii. 703 

Johnson's Appeal i. 136 

Jobasoa, ex parte i. 193 

V. Arnold iij. 182 

V. Berkshire Ine. Co. ii. 449 

I). Blasdale i. 69, 82, 242 

Johnson v. Blenkonsop 

ii. 34 

V. Bloodgood 

i. 230 

V. Boone 

ii. 632 

V. (;lay 

ii. 637, 638 

V. Collins 

i. 27 

V. Coombs 

iii. 253 

V. Cunningham 

ii. 615 

I'. Day 

ii. 757 

V, Dodgson 

iii. 6 

V. Dorsey 

i. 436 

!•. Evans 

i. 209 

V. Fitzhugh 

iii. 516 

V. Foster 

i. 468 

V. Gamett 

iii. 307 

V. Gibbs 

iii. 307 

V. Gilbert 

iii. 25 

V. Greaves 

ii. 285 

V. HiU 

ii. 156 

V. Holdsworth 

ii. 617 

V. Huekins 

ii. 343 

V. Hudson 

ii. 753 

V. Hudson River E. E. Co. 

ii. 231 
V. Hunt ii. 259; iii. 455, 481 
V. Jackson • ii. 680 

V. Johnson i. 32, 342, 495 ; ii. 
517, 520; iii. 116, 400 
V. Kennion i. 262 

V. Lancaster ii. 637, 638 

V. Latham ii. 693 

1-. Liaes i. 296, 311 

V. Marlliorough ii.. 723 ; iii. 307 
V. MaiTiott i. 115 

V. Martinus i. 256 

V. McDonald i. 554 

V. Mcdlieott i. 384 

V. Meeker i. 265 

V. Midland Railway Co. ii. 173, 
u. Miln ii. 302 

V. Municipality i. 138 

V. Nyce iii. 227 

V. Ogilby i. 64 

V. O'Hara i. 95 

u. Peck ii. 773 

V. Pie i. 317 

V. Planters Bank ii. 23 

V. Sandusky, The ii. 263 

V. Schooner Mcdonough ii. 1*44 
t,. Shrewsbuiy &. B. Ry. Co. 

iii. 367, 375, 417 
V. Sims i. 391 ; ii. 338 

ti. Smith i. 51, 54; iii. 44 

V. Somers iii. 13 

V. Spillcr iii. 509 

V. Stone ii. 255, 256 

V. Sumner iii 197 

D.Thayer i. 219 

^. Totten i. 170 

V. Watson iii. 39 

V. White ii. 733 

V. Wliitwell iii. 423, 426 



Johnson v. "Wilson 
Johnston, ex parte 
V. Barrett 
u. Bower 
V. Caulkins 

i. 25; ii. 698 
i. 270 
i. 409 
ii. 726 
ii. 675 

V. Commonwealth ii. 759, 761 

V. Cope i. 577, 584 

u. Duttou i. 192 

„. Fussier i. 475 

V. Glancy iii. 60, 393, 403 

I'. Huildloston ii. 798 

17. NichoUs ii. 23 

u. Sciiri-y ii. 26 
I. Sou til ■\Vestem Railroad 

Bank _i. 74 

u. Tliomi«on ii. 25 

V. Wabash College i. 453 

Johnstone v. Huddk'Stuiie i. 510, 513 

JoUand, v. i. 89 

JoUett V. Depoiuhieu iii. 452 
Jolly V. Baltimore Eiiuitahle Society ii. 429 

Jonasshon v. G. N. Ry. Co. ii. .532 

Jones, ex parte iii. 134, 508 

V. Ashburnham i. 441, 443, 444 

V. Barcley ii. 52S 

u. Belt iii. 382 

V. Bennett ii. 699 

V. Blanehard iii. 455 

V. Blum ii. 271 
u. Boston Mill Corporation i. 438 ; 
ii. 695, 703; iii. 378 

V. BoTce ii. 222 

V. Bradner i. 595 

u. Brewer i. 136 

;;. Bright i. 586 

V. Broadlmrst iii. 309 

V. Bullitt ii. 619 

V. Clarke ii. 543 

u. Commerce, The ii. 271 

t>. Cooper iii. 20 

V. Darch i. 330 

V. Dowman i. 64 

a. Dunn ii. 520 

V. Dyke i. 597 

V. Edney i. 594 

V, Fales ii. 538 

V. Flint iii. 32 

V. Foxall i. 122; iii. 466 

V. Giljbons iii. 471 

V. Gilreath ii. 739 

V. Glass ii. 124 

V. Gwynn iii. 166 

V. Herbert i. 186; ii. 715 

V. Hibbert iii. 495 

V. Hoar ii. 638 

V. Hook ii. 588 

V. Howland iii. 486 

V. Ins. Co. ii. 410 

V. Johnston ii. 716 

V. Jones i. 601 

V. Judd ii. 59, 659 

V. Kilgore ii. 632 

Jones 0. Lees 
V. Lewis 
V. Littledale 
V. Lusk 
V. Marsh 
V. Moore 
V. Morrisett, The 
V. ^anney 
u. Newman 
i). Nicholson 
V. Nov 
V. O'Brien 
V. Perkins 
o. Peterman 
u. Pitcher 
V. Powell 

V. Provincial Ins. Co, 
V. Randall 
u. Reed 
V. Richardson 
V. Robinson 
V. Roe 
V. Ryde 
0. Ryder 
V. Sawkins 
V. Selby 
V. Shorter 
V. Simpson 
f. Sims 
i;. Smith 
V. Starkey 
V. Tanner 
u. Timrloe 
V. Todd 
1'. Tyler 

V. United States 
V. Voorhecs 
V. Waite 
u. Ward 
0. Williams 
V. Witter 
V. Woodbury 
V. Yates 
Maimf. Co 

ii. 753 
iii. 93 

i. 64, 497 
i. 205 
i. 514 ; iii. 2uy 
iii. 86 
ii. 271 
i. 497 
ii. 558 
ii. 376, 378 

i. 72, 199 
i. 271 

1. 384 

iii. 60 

ii. 275 

iii. 510 

ii. 466 

ii. 755 

i. 503 

i. 570 

ii. 20, 23, 466, 467 

i. 523 

i. 262 

iii. 296 

ii. 686 

i. 236, 237 

iii. 22 

iii. 312 

i. 533 

ii. 88, 113, 871 

ii. 104 

i. 127 

ii. 139, 156 

i. 321 

ii. 155 

ii. 633 

ii. 168, 234, 255 

i. 359, 455, 458 

ii. 635 

i. 479 

i. 229, 230 

ii. 59 

i. 203; ii. 782 

Manuf. Ins. Co. 

ii. 403, 424, 4.30 

Jonge Andries, The ii. 318 

Bastiaan, Tho ii. 318, 319 

Jordan v. Black i. 370 

V. Fall River R. R. Co. ii. 254 

V. James i. 99, 553, 59S 

0. Lewis iii. 150 

V. ilcredith ii. 545 

V. Neilson ii. 724 

V. Norton i. 41, 447 

V. Trumbo • iii. 126 

V. Warren Ins. Co. ii. 289, 297, 389 

u. Williams ii. 346 

■Joseph V. Bigelow ii. 554 

Joseph E. Coffee, The ii. 263 

Joseph Cunard, The ii. 264 

Joseph Harvey, The ii. 348 

Joseph, The ii. 399 



Josephine, The 

ii. 398 

V. Poultney 

i. 418 

Josephs V. Pebber 

i. 100 

V. Pebrer 

i. 143 

Joshua Barker, The 

ii. 29S, 336 

Joslyn V. Sniitli ii. 25, 26; iii. 81 

Jouidain v. Wilson i. 233 

Joy V. Campbell iii. 479 

u. Hopkins iii. 207 

V. Sears ii. 275 ; iii. 487 

Joyce V. Adams i. 528 

V. Maine Ins. Co. ii. 430 

Joynes v. Statham iii. 357 

Jubber i\ Jubber ii. 558 

Judah V. Harris i. 248 

V. Randall ii. 388 

Judd V. Fulton ii. 664 

u. Ives iii. 446 

V. Lawrence i. 397 

V. Porter iii. 436 

Judge V. Wilkins i. 436 

Judkins v. Waiker i. 315; ii. 37 

Judson V. Goodwin i. 36 

u. Holmes i. 242 

V. Sturges i. 94 

.;. Wass ii. 657 

Juhel V. Church ii. 359 

Julia M. Hallock, The ii. 349 

The ii. 399 

Juliana, The i. 390 ; ii. 337, 338 

Jumel !!. Marine Ins. Co. 327, "381, 396 

Juniata Bank v. Hale i. 269 

Junkins v. Simpson ii. 680 

Juno, The ii. 360 

Jupiter, The ii. 311 

Jurgenson v. Catharina Maria, The ii. 340 

Juzan V. Tonlmin ii. 775 


Kain v. Old i. 547, 590 ; ii. 548 

Kaines v. Knightly ii. 354 

Kane v. Bloodgood iii. 99 

V. Columbia Ins. Co ii. 415 

V. Gott i. 135 

V. Hood ii. 494, 530, 533 

V. Paul i. 129 

in re i. 308 

Karri). Karr i. 122, 123 

Karthaus v. Ferrer i. 191 ; ii. 691 

Kase V. John _ i. 592 

Kasson, in re iii. 500 

Kathman v. Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. ii. 362 

Kay V. Allen , ii. 13 

ji. Curd iii. 14 

V. Duchess de Pienne i. 367 

Ifaye v. Brett i. 48 

.;. Button i. 434, 472, 473 

0. Waghorne ii. 688 

Kayser v. Disher i. 128 

Kead v. Rann ii. 543 

Kcane v. Boycott i. 295; ii. 47, 43 
Kearney v. Holmes ii. 36 
Kcars.arge, The ii. 262, 263 
Koarsey i'. Carstairs iii. 491 
Kearslake n. Morgan ii. 684 
Keaslcy o. Codd i. 146 
0. Cole i. 286 
Keate v. Temple iii. 20 
Keates v. Cadogan i. 501, 588 
Keating v. Price ii. 555 
V. Spink ii. 271 
Keeble v. Hickeringall iii. 182 
Keeler v. Field i. 538 
u. Fireman's Ins. Co. ii. 349, 406 
V. Neal ii. 687 
Keen v. Coleman ii. 799 
V. M'Laughlin iii. 169 
Keenan v. Brown ii. 532 
Keene v. Beard i. 261 
u. Dilke iii. 181 
0. Keene iii. 105 
V. Thompson ii. 622 
Keener v. Bank of United States ii. 547 
V. Harrod i. 65 
Keenholts v. Becker iii. 1 69 
Keightley v. Watson i. 14, 17, 23 ; ii. 491 
Keir v. Leeman i. 449 
Keith V. Etheridge iii. 250 
V. Goodwin i. 36 
V. Jones i. 3r 
Kekewich v. Manning iii. 36ft 
ICelby V. Steel i. 26 
KcU'i). Nainby i. 24; ii. 795 
Keller v. Ybarru i. 475 
Kelley v. Hemingway i. 249 
V. Hurlburt i. 167, 168 
V. Sanborn iii. 83 
V. Smith iii. 313 
V. Solari ii. 416 
V. Webster iii. 35 
KcUner v. Le Mesurier ii. 359 
Kellogg V. Brennan ii. 27 1 
V. Denslow i. 592, 594 
V. Gilbert ii. 614 
V. Hickock iii. 151 
V. Norris ii. 615 
V. Richards ii. 619, 620 
V. Schuyler iii. 509 
V. Slawsou iii. 449 
i>. Smith ii. 797 
V. Wood ii. 790 
Kelly V. Cunningham ii. 311 
V. Dutch Church of Schenec- 
tady iii. 226, 232 
V. Garrett ii. 742 
V. Holdship iii. 469 
V. Low iii. 228 
V. Mayor, &c. of New York i. 105 
V. Powlet ii. 561 
u. Smith iii. 193 
V, Solari i. 525 ; ii 4i6 
Kemble v. Farren iii. 160, 102 

VOL. I. 




Keml)le y. Kean i 196 ; iii. 367, 376 

Kentucky Mutual Ins. Co. 

u. .Tenks 

Kemeys v. Proctor 

iii. 357, 388 

ii. 420, 483 

Keinleys v. Richards 

i. 191 

Kcntyen v. Parks 

i. 290 

Kemp V. Andrews 
V. Balls 

i. 31 

Kenwortliy v. Schofield 

i. 497; iii. 11 

i. 251; ii. 618 

Kenyon v. Berthon 

ii. 397, 40; 

V. Burt 

i. 114 

V. Nichols 

ii. 554 

V. Carnley 

i. 178 

V. Welty 

iii. 398, 399 

V. Coffin 

i. 194 

Kepner v. Keefer 

ii. 757, 759 

V. Coughtry ii 

169, 212, 335 

Ker V. Dungannon 

i. 86 

V. Finden 

i. 31 

V. Mountain 

ii. 227 

V. Pryor 

i. 82, 95 

V. Snead 

i. 123 

V. Westbrook 

iii. 272, 274 

Kercheval v. Triplett 

ii. 790 

Kempe v. Fitchie 

iii. 372 

Kerns v. Piper 

i. 43 

Kendal v. Symonds 

ii. 693 

V. Schoonmaker 

iii. 92 

Kendall v. Pitts 

i. 530 

Kcrper v. Hoch 

iii. 513 

>■. Stone iii 

169,172, 181 

Kerr v. Chess 

ii. 732 

Kendricli; v. Campbell 

i. 267 

V. Laird 

i. 123 

V. Delaticld 

ii. 379 

V. Moon 

ii. 571 

V. Lomax 

ii. 684 

V. Willan 

ii. 252 

V. McCrary 

ii. 71 

Kerrison v. Cole 

i. 457 

V. Turbell 

ii. 698 

Kershaw v. Cox 

iii. 297, 306 

Kennard v. Bui-ton ii 

232, 233, 310 

u. Matthews 

i. 200 

Kennaway v. Treleaven 

i. 450; iii. 16 

Kerslake v. White 

i. 498 

Kennebec Co. v. Augusta 

Ins. Co. 

Kerwhaker u. Cleveland C 

& C. R. 


354, 366, 368 

R. Co. 

ii. 231 

Kennedy v. Baltimore Ins. 

Co. i. 138, 

Kctchell V. Burns 

ii. 3 


Ketchum v. Barber 

iii. 149 

V. Barnwell 

iii. 102 

u. Durfee 

i. 180 

V. Bohannon 

i. 169 

u. Durkee 

i. 177, 204 

V. Duncklee 

ii. 735 

V. Erertsoa 

ii. 35 

V. Gad 

ii. 756 

'v. Stout 

iii. 402 

V. Green 

ii. 671 

Kettell V. Alliance Ins. Co. 

ii. 384, 395 

V. Kennedy 

iii. 282 

u. Wiggin 

ii. 406,411 

V. Lee i. 154 

, 483 ; iii. 389 

Kettle V. Har\ ey 

ii. 524, 530 

V. MePadon 

i. 164 

Ketsey's Case 

i. 333 

V. Ross 

i. 530 

Kettleby v. Atwood 

iii. 374 

17. St. Lawrence Co. 

Ins. Co. 

Kettletas v. Fleet 

i. 412, 416 

ii. 352, 

422, 430, 437 

Kewloy v. Ryan 

ii. 362, 413 

V. Strong 

,iii. 195, 197 

Key V. Bradshaw 

ii. 60 

V. Ware 

' iii. 360, 363 

I'. Cotesworth 

i. 598, 605 

V. Whitwell iii. 106, 195, 197, 

V. Vattier 

ii. 766 


V. Wilson 

ii. 742 

Kcnnersly Castle, The 

ii. 284 

Keyes v. Keyes 

ii. 81 

Kennett v. Chambers 

i. 456 

Keys V. Harwood 

ii. 678 

V. Milbank 

iii. 71 

u. Williams 

i. 224 

Kenniston v. Jlcr. Co. Ins. 

Co. ii. 446 

Kcyscr v. Hanbeek 

i. 521 ; ii. 28' 

Kennon v. Dickens 

iii. 152, 153 

Kid V. Mitchell 

iii. 1*3 

Kenny v. Udall 

i. 342 

Kidd V. Rawlinson 

i. 530 

Kenrig i'. E^'^rlcston 

ii. 202, 2.)4 

Kiddell v. Burnard 

i. 591 

Kensington, ex jturte 

i. 211 

Kidder v. Hunt 

iii. 59 

u. Dollond 

iii. 499 

Kidney v. Stoddard 

ii. 777 

V. Iiiglis ii. 424 ; iii. 322 

Kicran v, Sandars 

ii. 142 

Kent V. Bur'icss 

ii. 598 

Kierlighctt, The 

ii. 278 

V. Elstoh 

ii. 703 

Kiersage, The 

ii. 262 

V. Humpln-eys 

ii. 660 

Kiester v. Miller 

i. 448 

f. lluskinson 

iii. 6, 44 

Kiggil V. Player 

iii. 470 

V. Kent 

ii. 44 ; iii. 36 

Kilborn v. Lyman 

iii. 513,514 

V. Manuf. Ins. Co. 

ii. 372 

Kdburn v. Kilburn 

ii. 691, 696 

11. Phelps 

iii. 134, 135 

Kilby V. Wilson 

i. 185 

u. Shuckard 

ii. 149 

Kilgore v. Bulkley 

ii. 538 

V. Somervell 

i. 128 

V. Powers 

iii. 105 

Kentucky, The, u. Brooks 

ii. 271 

Kilgour V. Finlyson 

i. 48 



Kilgour V. Miles ii. 666 

Kill v. HoUistcr ii. 708 

Killcrcase v. Killcrease i. 341 

Killick, ex parte iii. 499 

Kilmorey v. Thackeray iii. 369 

Kilviiigton V. Stevenson ii. 738 

Kimball v. BlaisJell ii. 790 

!). Blown iii. 73 

V. Cunningham ii. 780, 781 

V. Howard Ins. Co. ii. 458 

V. Keyes i. 362 

V. Morris iii. 520 

V. Proprieters of Boston 

Athenaeum iii. 117 
V. Rutland & B. R. E. Co 

ii. 167, 237, 240 

V. Thompson iii. 448 

V. Tucker ii. 302 

Kimbcrley v. Jennings iii. 416 

Kimberly v. Ely iii. 554 

Kimbro v. Hamilton i. 526 

Kirapton 0. Eve i. 512 ; iii. 373 

Kineaid v. Brunswick ii. 639 

Kinder v. Howarth iii. 471 

V. Sliaw i. 93 

Bane v. Balfe iii. 393 

King, ex parte iii. 495, 505, 509 

V. Baldwin ii. 24 

V. Bardeau iii. 402 

i>. Barrett i. 114 

V. Bickley i. 283 

V. Bowen ii. 692 

V. Brown iii. 231 

V. Chace ii. 730, 732 

V. Diehl iii. 103 

V. Doolittle i. 259 ; iii. 398, 399 

D. Dowdall ii. 666 

V. Drury iii. 140 

V. Faber i. 181 

V. Flintan i. 355 

V. Gillett ii. 305 

t;. Hamilton iii. 351 

V. Hartford Ins. Co. ii. 366 

K. Hoare 1.11,12 

V. Hobbs _i. 442 

V. Humphreys ii. 134 

V. Hutchins ii. 679 

V. Johnson iii. 144 

V. Jones i. 129, 130 

V. Kerr iii. 226 

V. Kersey ii. 70 

V. Lane iii. 96 

V. Lenox ii. 181 

17. Lowry ii. 268 

V. McCampbell i. 378 

V. Mashiter ii. 499 

V. Paddock iii. 462 

V. Perry ii. 284 

V. Pyle iii. 226, 227 

V. Richards ii. 94, 204, 209; iii. 253 

V. Root iii. 172 

Ml. Sears i. 455 

King V. Shepherd' 


169, )72 

V. Simmonds 

iii. 460 

V. Smith 

ii. 615 

V. Sow 

ii. 47 

V. State Ins. Co. ii. 368 

439, 440 

V. Thom 


128, 129 

V. Trice 

iii. 426 

V. Upton 



V. Wilcomb 

i. 151 

V. Wilson 

iii. 384 

V. Withers 

iii. 362 

King's Heirs v. Thompson 


355, 359 

Kingdom v. Nottle 

I. 129, 

130, 232 

Kingham !>. Rohbins 

ii. 638 

Kingman v. Spurr 

i. 154 

Kingsbury v. Smith 

iii. 165 

Kingsford v. Merry 

i. 521 

; iii. 274 

ICingsley v. Balcombe 

iii. 22 

V. Wallis i 



Kingston v. Girard 

ii. 412 

u. Kineaid i. 42, 


; ii. 694 

V. Knibbs 

ii. 542 

ti. Phelps 


449, 451 

V. Preston 


528, 529 

V. Wilson 

i. 81 

Kington v. Kington 

ii. 621 

Kinley v. Fitzpatrick 

i. 581 

Kinloch v. Craig 

i. 600 

; iii. 259 

Kinlyside o Thornton 

i. 512 

Kinnard v. Daniel 

i. 370 

Kinnerley v. Hossack 


739, 741 

Kinncrslcy v. Orpe 

i. 506 

Kinney v. Ensign 

ii. 715 

V. Lee 

i. 249 

V. Watts 


226, 232 

Kinsey v. Anderson 

ii. 725 

V. Stewart 

iii. 269 

Kinsley v. Ames 

i. 514 

u. Rohinsou 

i. 270 

Kinsman v. Loomis 

ii. 790 

V. Park hurst 

ii. 753 

Kintzing v. McElrath 

i. 47£ 

; ii. 776 

Kintzinger, Estate of 

i. .341 

Kipling V. Turner 

ii. 20 

Kirby, ex parte 

iii. 519 

V. Bannister 

i. 125 

V. Duke of Marlborough 

ii. 634 

V. IngersoU 


179, 184 

V. Schoonmiiker 

i. 205 

0. Smith 

ii. 405 

Kirk V. Blurton 

i. U-i 

V. Bromley Union 

iii. 387 

V. Glover 

ii. 615 

V. Hodgson 


180, 193 

V. Nice 

i. 587 

Kirkham v. Marter 

iii. 28 

Kirkman v. Newstead 

i. 24 

V. Shawcross ii. 150 

; iii. 239 

Kirkpatrick v. Houston 

iii. 123 

V. McCuUock 

i. 259 

V. Smith 

ii. 55.') 

V. Stainer 

i. 95, 96 



KiiTiCy V. Smith 
Kirtland v. Wanzer 
Kirtoii V. Braithwaite 

V. Elliott 
Kirwaii V Kirwan 
Ki=?am v. Albert, The 
ivisti'ii V. Hildebrand 
Kitchen v. Bartsch 

V. Lee 
Kitcliin V. Buekley 
V. Campbell 
u. Compton 
Kitson I'. Julian 
Kittredge v. Bellows 
V. Brown 
V. Emerson 
V. Warren 
V. Woods 
Kittredge v. Mc-Langhlin 
Kitty V. Eitzhugh 
Klein, in re 

u. Cumcr 
Kleine i\ Catara 
Kline v. Bcebe 

V. L'Araonreux 
Klock (■. Roliinson 
Knapp y. Alvord 
u. Cnrtis 
V. Hanford 
V. Harden 
V. Malthy 
!'. McBride 
Kneeland v. Ensley 
linight ii. Attila, The 
V. Barber 
V. Bennett 
V. Barton 
V. Cambridge 
u. Clements 

11. Croekford 
V. Faith 
V. Fox 

1. Hughes 
V. Hunt 

u. Knotts 
V. Lord Pliraouth 
V. Nepean 

V. N. E. Worsted Co 
V. Nichols 
V. Pardons 
!>. Peachy 
Knight:? V. Putnam 
r. (iuarlcs 
Knill v. Hooper 

V. Williams 
Knobb V. Linsay 
Knott V. Cortee 

iii. 460 

i. 287 

ii. 040 

i. 297 

i, 189, 436 

ii. .310 

ii. 149 

iii. 403 

i. 327 

i. 21 

iii. 469, 479 

1. 21 

ii. 15, 17 

iii. .513 

iii. 69 

iii. 513 

iii. 513 

i. 510, 511 

iii. 503 

i. 404, 415 

iii. 433 

ii. 7 

ii. 691,703, 705 

i. 295, 326 

i. 311 

iii. 103 

i. 72 

ii. 139 

i. 128 

ii. 553 

iii. 163 

i. 198, 200 

ii. 599 

ii. 281 

iii. 50, 295 

i. 510 

Ii. 697, 699 

ii. 378 

11. 723 ; iii. 341 

ii. 502 

ii. 306, 30 


385, 396 

i. 104 

i. .33 

iii. 523 

ii. j.'")3 

iii. 465, 471 

ii. 485 

ii. 532, 533 

i. 569 

ii. 343 

iii. 4ya 

iii. 118 

i. 130 

ii. 400, 407 

iii. 300 
i. 492 
i. 122 
i. 154 

Knowles v. McCamly 

V. Michel 
Knowlton v. Bos.s 

I'. Vickies 
Knox «. Flack 

1 . Ninetta, The 
V. Simonds 
I'. Waldoborough 
Koch, ex parte 

V. Eriggs 
Kohler v. Smith 
Kohlnian r. Ludwig 
Kolin V. Packard 

V. Schooner Eenaisance 
Kohne v. Ins. Co. 
Konig V. Bayard 
Konigmacher v. Kimmel 
Koons t\ Aliller 
Kooystra r. Lucas 
Kornegay v. White 
Kortright r. Buffalo Com. Bank 
Koster ii. Keed 
Kramer v. Sanfbrd 
Kratzer v. Lyon 
Kraus v. Arnold 
Krci.vs V. Scligman 
Kribbs v. Downing 
Kridcr v. Lalfertv 
Krom V. Sfhoonmakcr 
Kru;4er v. Wilcox 
Kuch V. B. & W. K. R. Co. 
Kunckle v. K^unckle 
Knnzler v. Kohaus 
Kurtz V. Adams 
K\'le V. Green 

V. 10. R. R. Co. 

V. Wells 
Kymer v. Larkin 

('. Suwereropp 
Kynaston !•. Crouch iii. 425, 479, 501, 5ii2 
Kynter's Case ii. :i73 


iii. 413 
iii. 33 
ii. 346 

ii. 707 

i. :i;i.) 

ii. 280, 290, SKi 

ii. 705 

ii. 7.>,3 

iii. 511 

iii 421 

iii. 10", 

i. 2.54 

i. 194, 195, 211.-, 

ii. 754 

ii. 42(1 

i. 237 

i. 135, 130 

iii. 102 

i. 500 

i. 591 

iii. 198 

ii. 376 

i. 271, 279 

ii. 689 

ii. 642 

i. 456 

iii. 400 

ii. 557 

iii. 11)7 

iii. 259 

ii. 2.! I 

ii. 695 

iii. 432 

ii. 7 

i. 27i 

ii, 218 

iii. 66, 85 

iii. 479, 498 

i. 03, 598 

Knoup V. The Piqua Bank iii. 529, 530, 532 
Knowles v. A. & 8t. L. K. R. Co. ii. 94 
V. Maynard ii. 797 

La Amistad do Rues 
Lacaussadc v. White 
Laccy, e.r jiarte i, 

La<-key v. iStouder 
Lackington v. Atherton 
Laclouch V. Towle 
Lacon v. Briggs 
('. Higgins 
V. IMcrlins 
La Constantia 
Lacoste v. Flotard 
Lacy, ex parte 

a. Kynaston 

V. Lear 

r. Osbaldistou 
Ladd V. Chotard 

V. Kenney 

i. 27 










i. 43 




i. f)2 









i. S7 

; "■ 




ii. 36 







Ladd V. Lynn i. 363 

Lady Arundell v. Phips i. 530 

Belknap's Case i. 366 

Cox's Case iii. 510 

Durham, The ii. 339, 340, 341 

Ormond r. Hutchinson i. 88 

La Farge i'. Herter ii. 25 

V. Kneeland 1. 79 

Laflin v. Willard iii. 219 

Lafon V. Chinn i. 162 

Lafonde v. Ruddock iii. 96 

Laforge v. Jayne iii. 66 

Lal.iiy V. Holland i. 25 

Lai'Uaw v, Or};an i. 578 ; ii. 776 

Laiiler v. Burlinson ii. 259, 519 

V. Elliott i. 114 

Laing v. Chatham ii. 741 

u. Colder ii. 221, 240, 248 

V. Fidgeon i. 586 

V. Lee iii. 16 

& Todd, in re ii. 690 

Lainson v. Treraere ii. 789 

Laird v. Pirn iii. 209, 232 

V. Robertson ii. 353 

La Jeune Eugenie ii. 570 

Lake v. Gibson iii. 282 

Erie R. R. Co. v. Eckler i. 89 

Lalor V. Wattles iii. 433 

Lamar v. Mintcr iii. 221 

Lamalt v. Hudson Riv. Ins. Co. ii. 352 

Lamb v. Briard ii. 343 

V. Crafts i. 582, 589 ; iii. 55 

V. Durant ii. 275 ; iii. 487 

t. Lathrop ii. 653 

V. Linds.iy iii. 126 

V. Parkman ii. 291 

Larabard v. Pike ii. 207 

Lambert K. Bessey iii. 167 

V. Liddard ii. 414 

Lambert's Case i. 183 

Lambeth v. Western Ins. Co. ii. 36-1 

Lamburn v. Cruden ii. 40 

Lamego v. Gould iii. 142 

Lamerson v. Marvin ii. 781 

Lamond v, Davall i. 538 

L'Amoreux v. Gould i. 437, 450, 452 

V. Van Rennselaer i. 369 

Lamourieux v. Hewit ii. 3 

Lam pen v. Kedgewin ii. 733 

Lampet's Case i. 223 

Lam))on v. Corke ii. 502, 788 

Laraeon v. Westcott ii. 342 

Lancaster Canal Co., ex parte iii. 506 

Lancaster v. Harrison i. 28, 29 

Lancaster Bank v. Wordward i. 225 

Lancaster Co. Bank v. StauiFer i. 373 

Lanchester v. Tricker i. 32 

Lance v. Cowan i. 520 

Lanckton v. Wolcott iii. 512 

Land «. JeflFeries i. 530 

Lander v. Clark ii. 303 

Landon v. Litchfield iii. 544 

Landry v. Stansbury 

i. 270 

Landsdale v. Cox 

i. 32 

Lane, ex parte 

iii. 465, 471 

V. Burghart 

iii. 28, 506 

V. Chandler 

ii. 744 

V. Cook 

iii. 189 

V. Cotton ii. 80, 144, 150, 173 ; iii. 


V. Drirkwater i. 13, 15, 20, 22, 23 

u. -Goodwin ii. 83 

V. Harrison ii. 733 

V. Ironmonger i. 348 

V. Maine Ins. Co. ii. 450 

V. McKeen i. 347 

V. Mullins iii. 341 

V. Owings i. 28 

V. Pearce ii. 736 

V. Penniman ii. 293, 334 

V. Steward i. 278 ; iii. 144, 147 

Eraser and Boyleton, Case of i. 159 

La Neuville c. Nourse i. 584 

Lanfear v. Sumner i. 553, 609 

Lang «. Anderdon ii. 400 

V. Bevard ii. 25 

V. Smith i. 291 

V. Waring i. 150 

;;. Webber ii. 736 

1-. Whidden i. 384 

Langan v. Hewett i. 186 

Langdale, ex parte i. 156 

Landon v. Buel i. 569 

V. Paul ii. 720 

Langer v. Felton ii. 787 

Langford v. Frey i. 295 

V. Raiford iii. 514 

Langfort i;. Tiler i. 526, 532, 598 ; iii. 209 

Langhorn v. Allnutt ii. 414 

o. Collogan ii. 354, 360, 368 

Langley v. B. & M. R. R. Co. ii. 219 

V. Berry i. 219 

V. Palmer i. 273 

Langloie v. Brant ii. 367 

Langridge v. Levy ii. 780; iii. 182 

Langston, ex parte iii. 280 

Langton v. Higgins i. 524, 527 

V. Horton i. 523, 571 ; ii. 117, 


V. Hughes ii. 747, 753 

Lanier!). McCabe i. 191 

Lann v. Church iii. 269 

Lano V. Neale ii. 273 

Lanphier v. Phipos i. 74 

Lansdale v. Brashear Iii. 73, 89, 90 

Lansdowne v. Lansdowne iii. 398 

Lansing i;. Gaine i. 169 

V. Lansing ii. 756 

Lansing y. McKiUup i. 188 

V. Montgomery ii. 7S7 

u. Prendergast iii. 507, 508 

Lantey v. Parks i. 528 

Lantry v. Parks ii. 36, 37, 4' 

Lanvon v. Blanchard iii. 266 



Lanyon v. Toogood 

i. 532 

Lawson v. Dickinson 

iii. 270 

Lapham t Atlas Ins. Co. 

ii. 366 

(J. Dumlin 

ii. 349 

V. Whipple 

iii. 36 

V. Farniei-s Bank i 

280, 282, 284 

Lapsley v. Pleasants 

ii. 381 

V. Higgins 

ii. 263 

Larch, The 


270, 334 

V. Lawson 

i. 236 

Larrabee v. Talbott 

iii. 443 

V. Lovejoy i. 295, 

322, 326, 334 

Lary v. Young 

i. 277 

V. Townas 

ii. 13 

Lassell v. Reed 


510, 512 

u. Weston 

i. 242, 255 

Lasselle v. Brown 

i. 378 

Lawton v. Lawton 

i. 513 

Latham v. Morrow 


i. 497 

0. Salmon 

i. 513 

Lathrop v. Amherst Bank 

ii. 766 

Layer v. Nelson 

i. 31 

V. Atwood 


186, 187 

Layfleld's Case 

i. 180 

V. Morris 

i. 259 

Layson v. Rowan 

iii. 426 

Latourette v. Williams 

i. 342 

Laythoarp v. Bryant 

iii. 9, 58 

Latimer v. Batson 

i. 530 

Layton, ex parte 

iii. 461 

Latt V. Booth 


295, 314 

V. Butler 

iii. 222 

Lattimore v. Garrard 

i. 473 

V. Pearce 

ii. 657 

Laughan v. Bewett 

i. 366 

Lazarus v. Cora. Ins. Co. ii 

355, 439, 480 

Laugher i'. Pointer i. 


107, 108 

c. Cowio 

iii. 340 

Laughltn v. Ferguson 

i. 530 

V. Waithman 

iii. 479 

Laughter's Case 

ii. 510 

Lazell V. Pinnick 

i. 384 

Laughton v. Taylor 

ii. 725 

Lea V. Barber 

iii. 18 

Laurent v. Chatham Ins. Co. ii. 

441, 452 

V. Alexander, The 

ii. 318 

Lavabre v. Wilson 

ii. 414 

Leach v. Hewitt 

i. 271 

Laval V. Myers 

ii. 757 

u. MuUett 

i. 494, 540 

Lavender, ex parte 

iii. 460 

V. Thomas 

i. 512 

Laveroni v. Drury 

i. 30E 

; ii. 172 

Leadbetter v. JEtna Ins. Co 

ii. 461 

Laverty v. Burr 

i. 186 

Leader v. Barry 

i. 293; ii. 77 

La Vie V. Philips 

iii. 462 

Leaf V. Coles 

i. 198 

Lavinia, Ship, v. Barclay 

i. 78 

Leake v. Young 

ii. 684 

Law V. Hollingsworth 

ii. 406 

Lean v. Sliutz 

i. 366 

V. Jackson 

ii. 639 

Leaper v. Tatton 

iii. 62, 64 

V. London Life Policy 


ii. 479 

Lear v. Yarnel 

iii, 113 

V. Sutherland 

iii. 146 

Learned v. Bellows 

ii. 714 

V, Wilkin i. 


446, 469 

Loatherdale t: Sweepstone 

ii. 642, 643 

Lawler v. Keaquick 

i. 84, 94 

Leathly v. Hunter 

ii. 414 

Lawley v. Hooper 


108, 140 

Leavenworth v. Delafield 

ii. 331, 390 

Lawrence v. Brown 

ii. 794 

Leavitt V. Do Launy 

iii. 136 

V. Clark 

i. 163 

V. Palmer 

i. 4.i7 

V. Cowles 

iii. 117 

V. Peck 

i. 180 

V. Dayis 

iii. 426 

V. Putnam 

i. 239 

V. Dole 

ii. 656 

V. Savage 

ii. 25, 20 

V. Dorsey 

iii. 352 

V. Simes 

i. 269 

I). Fox 

i. 468 

Leballister v. Nash 

ii. 646 

V. Hand 

ii. 780 

Le Breton u. Miles 

ii. 583 

V. Heister 

i. 365 

u. Nouchet 

ii. 599 

V. Kemp 

i. 512 

Le Chcminant v. Pearson 

ii. 396 

V. Kidder 

ii. 753 

Lcchmore v. Brasier 

iii. 381 

V. McArtcr 

i, 295 

V. Carlisle 

iii. 510 

V. McCalmont 

ii. 5 

, 23, 502 

V. Fletcher 

iii. 69 

V. M'Gregor 

ii. 541 

V. Hawkins 

ii. 743 

V. Minturn 


327, 328 

Leek V. Maostaer 

ii. 139 

u. Ocean Ins. Co. 

ii. 413 

Lcckey v. McDevmott 

iii. 253 

V. Stonington Ban 

ki.2.51; ii. 104] 

Lcdoux i\ Goza 

i. 84 

V. Sydebotham 

ii. 412 

Lee, ex parte 

iii. 270, 495 

V. Taylor i. 150, 184; iii. 13 | 

V. Atkinson 

ii. 126 

V, Van Horno 

ii. 396 

V. Boardman 

ii. 379 

V. Wardwell iii. 


184, 185 

V. Coleshill 

i. 4.i7 

... Warrall 

iii. 62 

u. Dedcrer 

i. 305 

V. Wriglit 

i. 130 

u. Dick 

ii. 13 

Lawrenson u. Butler 

iii. 9, 409 1 

o. Elkins 

ii. 694, 698 

Laws V. Pursei 

ii. 798 1 

I/. Grinnell ii. 324, 

327, 328, 331 



Lee V. Hodges ii. 73 
V. Howard Ins. Co. ii. 352, 423, 432 

ti. Kilbui-n i. 596 

V. Kimb.'ill i. 553 

V. Lashbrooke i. 203 

1'. Lee ii. 48 

V. Mass. Ins. Co. ii. 371 

V. Muggeridge i. 432, 434, 435 

V. Pain ii 550 

V. Perry iii. 62 

V. Vernon i. 500 

i;. Wheeler i. 375 

i. Wood ii. 713 

V. Woolsey iii. 178 

V. iii. 287, 349 

Leech v. Baldwin ii. 66, 162 
Leeds and Tliirsk Railway v. Fearn- 

ley y i. 332, 334, 336 
and Liverpool Canal Co. v. 

Hustler ii. 507 
V. Cheetham ii. 463 
V. Dunn ii. 6 
V. Gray ii. 412 
V. Vail i. 347 
V. Wright i. 602 
Le",ke, er parte iii. 520 
Leoming v. Snaith ii. 302 
Leer v, Yates ii. 305 
Lees V. Nuttall ~ i. 86 
V. Whitcomb i. 449 
Leeson v. Holt ii. 239 
Lefever v. Underwood i. 166 
V. Witmer i. 373 
Leffingwell v. Elliott ui. 165, 224, 228 
V. WaiTen iii. 100 
Leffler v. Armstrong iii. 422 
Leflore v. Justice i. 587 
Jjeftwitch V. St. Louis Ins. Co. ii. 376 
Legal V. Miller iii. 355 
Legg ;;. Evans iii. 244 
!). Leffg i. 341,345 
V. Willard iii. 245 
Leggat V. Reed i. 348 
Legge V. Croker iii. 415 
Leggett V. Perkins i. 369 
V. Steele iii. 223 
Legh V. Hewitt i. 505 ; ii. 537 
V. Legh i. 23, 186, 226 ; ii. 617 
Legrand o. Hampden Sydney Col- 
lege i. 139 
Le Grand v. Damall i. 415 
Legro V. Staples i. 219 
Le Guen v. Gouverneur ii. 24 
Lehman v. Jones i. 271 
Leicester v. Rose iii- 523 
Leigh V. Hind ii. 750 
V. Patersou ii. 676 ; iii. 206 
V. Smith ii. 177 
V. Taylor i. 125 
Leighton, ex parte i- 1 36 
V. Atkins iii. .507 
e. Sargent i. 85 

Leighton v. Stevens i. 538 
V. Wales ii. 750 
Leitch V. Hollister iii. 426, 448 
Kekeux v, Nash iii. 492 
Leland v. Creyon ii. 1 1 
V. Medora, The ii. 282, 283 
V. Stone iii. 175 
Le Loir u. Bristow ii. 42, 74 1 
Le Louis ii. 568 
Lemanf ex parte iii. 464 
Lemar v. Miles i. 513 
Le Mcsurier v. Vaughan ii. 362 
Lemon u. Temple i. 290 
Lemott V, Skerrctt i. 504 
Lempriere v. Pasley iii. 470 
Lengsfield v. Jones ii. 302 
Lennard v. Robinson i. 64 
Lennig v. Ralston ii. 583 
Lennon y. Napper iii. 3.54, 377, 417 
Lennox v. Mutual Ins. Co. ii. 202 
V. Roberts i. 280 
Lenox u. United Ins. Co. ii. 416 
V. Winnissimet Co. ii. 311 
Leonard v. Adra'r of Villars ii. 636 
0. Bates i. 428 ; ii. 530, 533 
(.'. Hendrickson ii. 170 
V. Huntington ii. 265^ 275 
V. Leonard i. 386 
I'. Pitney iii. 99 
I'. Vredenburg ii. 6, 7; iii. 16 
Le Page v. McCrea ii. 620 
Lepard v. Vernon i. 71 
Leroux v. Brown ii. 592 ; iii. 57 
Le Roy v. Beard ii. 589 
u. Crowninshield ii. 590, 591 ; 
iii. 435, 436, 443 
V. Johnson i. 180 
Le Sage v. Coussmaker ii. 48 
Leslie v. Baillie iii. 399 
u. Guthrie iii. 468 
V. Tompson iii. 400 
Lessee of Lazarus v. Bryson i. 88 
Lester v. Garland ii. 663, 664 
V. Jowett i. 449 ; ii. 532 
V. McDowell i. 528 
L'Estrange v. L'Estrange i. 2 1 9 
Letcher v. Bank of the Common- 
wealth ii. 18 
V. Norton i. 570 
Lethbridge v. Mytton iii. 186, 229 
V. Phillips ii. 95 
Lett V. Melville iii. 460 
Letton V. Young iii. 1 76 
Leuckhart v Cooper iii. 239, 267, 268 
Lever v. Fletcher ii. 375 
Leverick u. Meigs i. 81, 92 
Levezey i'. Gorgas ii. 697 
Levi V. Kanrick i. 203 
V. Waterhouse ii. 242 
Levy V. Baillie ii. 462 
u. Bank of U. S. i. 264 
V. Cohen i 484 



Levy V. McCartee 

i. .397 

V. Merrill 

ii. 379 

Lewin v. Dille 

i. 51 

0. Guest 

i. 495 

Lewis, ex parte ii. 144, 


; iii. 268, 460, 

in re 

iii. 460 

u. Burgess 

ii. 699 

V. Burr 

i. 283 

V. Campbell 

• iii. 232 

V. Cleveland, The 

ii. 271 

V. Clifton 

ii. 795 

V. Covilland 

i. 526 

V. Culbertson 

ii. 739 

V. Ea!,'le Ins. Cc 

. ii 

401, 402, 432 

17, Elizal«th & Jane, 

The ii. 341 

V. Fullerton 

i. 418 

V. Gam:ii^e 

i. 118; ii. 614 

K. Gompcntz 

i. 283 

V, Hancock 

ii. 334 

V. Harvey 

i. 243 

V. Houston 

iii. 99 

V. Jones i. 286, 


,510; ii. 620, 

t;. Kramer 

i. 267, 268 

V. Lanj^don 

i. 154 

V. Lee 

i. 366 ; ii. 85 

V. LiDtlefield 

ii. 756 

V. Lyman 

i. 510 

i;. Lvstcr 

ii. 684 

V. Jiar-liall 

ii. 541, 543 

V. Nicholson 

i. 68 

V. Owen 

iii. 442 

V. Vwyn 

ii. 717, 719 

V. Pead 

i. 387 

V. Pcake i. 


; iii. 165, 213 

V. Kuckcr 

ii. 369, 395 

V. Springfield Ins. Co. ii. 437, 447 

i;. The Western 


road Co. 


186, 199, 200 

V. Trickey 

i. 446 

V. Welch 

i. 459 

V. Wcldon 

ii. 532 

V. Williams 

ii. 327, 332 

Lexington & Ohio R. R 


. V. An- 

plegate iii. 540 

Lexington v. Clarke 

i. 455; iii. 17, 18 

Lcyccster v. Logan 

il. 334 

Liltbcy V. Tolfbrd 

i. .501, 503 

Liber v. I'arsons 

iii. 226 

Liberty Hall Association v. 


tonic Ins. Co. 


351, 422, 427 

Libhart v. Wcjod 

ii. 35 

Lickbarrow v. Mason 


256, 289, 291, 

607 ; ii. 


; iii. 487, 488 

Liddard v. Kain 

i. 576 

v. Lopes 

ii. 299 

Liddell V. Johnstone 

iii. 343 

V. Sims 

ii. 660 

Liddlovv V. Wilmot 

i. 360, 362 

Lidgett V. Williams 

ii. 301 

Liedemann v. Schultz 

ii. 536 

Liford's Case i. 512 ; ii. 533, 534 

Lightbody v. Ontaiio Bank ii. 622 
u. North American Ins. Co. 

ii. 420 

Lighthurn v. Cooper i, 593 

Lightfoot !•'. Heron iii. 416, 417 

V. Tenant ii. 753, 7.54 

Lightly V. Clouston ii. 52 

Ligonia v. Buxton ii. 81 

Like V. Bcresford i. 286 

V. Thompson ii. 628 

Lillard v. Whitaker iii. 197 

Lillic V. Hoyt iii. 92 

Lilley v. EUvin ii. 32, 35, 36, 41 

Lilly V. Hays ii. 429, 467 

r. Hodges i. 12 

Limerick Academy v. Davis i. 452 

Lime Rock Bank v. Mallctt ii. 26, 27 

Lincoln v. S. & S. R. R. Co. iii. 165, 181 

(/. BattcUe ii. 590 

u. Hapgood ii. 579 

V. Hope Ins. Co. ii. 387 

V. Wilder ii. 506 

V. Whittenton Mills ii. 693 

V. Wright ii. 275 

& Kennebeck Bank v. Page 

ii. .538 
Lindenau v. Desborough ii. 435, 466, 471, 
478, 770, 777 

Lindgren v. Lindgren ii. 551 

Lindo V. Unsworth i. 2S2 

Lindon v. Hooper iii. 195 

Lindsay v. Amesley iii. 158 

V. Limbert iii. 491 

V. Lynch iii. 59, 355 

V. S|)ringer ii. 797 

Lindsey i>. Gordon ii. 660 
Line V. Stephenson i. 500; ii. 516 

Linekor v. Ayeshford i. 289 

Lines v. Smith i. 250, 575 

Lingen v. Simpson iii. 370 

Lingley v. Cutler ii. 441 

Linywood v. Eade ii. 697 

Link V. Clemmens iii. 666, 760 

Linn v. Crossing i. 12 

Linscott V. Mcliitire iii. 35, 36 

Linsell v. Bousor ii. 76 

Linscy v. Ashton ii. 697 

Linsley v. Bushnell iii. 165, 172 

V. Lovely ii. 547 

Lion, The ii. 310 
Liotard v. Graves i. 94 ; iii. 103 

Lipford V. Railroad Co. ii, 160 

Lippincott v. Barker iii. 426 

Lipscombe v. Holmes ii. 56 

Lipson V. Harrison ii. 315 

Liptrot V. Holmea i. 375 

Liscom V. Boston Ins. Co. ii. 459, 462 

Lister v. Baxter i. 78 

V. Lister iii. 465 

Litchfield, in re iii. 463 

V. Cudworth i. So 



Litt V. Cowlev 

i. 596, 598 

Littell V. Hord 

iii. 118 

V. Marshall 

i. 257 

Little V. Blunt 

iii. 86, 92, 96 

V. Clark 

i. 169 

V. Dawson 

ii. 48 

V. Rogei's 

iii. 271 

Littledale «. Dixon 

ii. 405 

Littlcfield V. Shee 

i. 43.1, 435 

V. Winslow 

ii. 499 

Littlcjohn, ex parte 

iii. 506 

0. Jones 

ii. 1G9 

Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Stevens ii. 43 

Litton V. Baldwin i. 368 

Livaudais v. Fonn i. 410 

Lively, The Schooner iii. 183 

Livermoro v. Herschell ii. 730 

V. Rand ii. 630, 633 ; iii. 73, 


Liverpool A. L. A. v. Fairhurst i. 345 

Livie V. Janoon ii. 396 

Living, ex joar^e iii. 471 

Livingston i'. Bird iii. 128 

V. Dugan i. 439 

V. Indianapolis Ins. Co. 

iii. 123 

V. Livingston i. 370 

V. Maryland Ins. Co. ii. 398, 

399, 401, 405 

V. Miller ii. 650 

u. Roosevelt 1. 179, 189 

V. Wooton ii. 627 

Livingstone v. Ralli ii. 709 

Lizardi v. Cohen i. 277 

Llewellyn, ex parte iii. 520 

V. Earl of Jersey ii. 550 

Lloyd, ex parte iii. 519 

V. Archbold i. 25, 168 

0. Brewster ii. 773, 781 

V. Freshfield i. 1 82 

V. Goodwin iii. 200, 204 

V. Howard i. 251 

V. Johnson i. 297 

V. Keach iii. 118, 144 

o. Leisenring ii. 757 

V. Lloyd ii. 73 

V. Maund ii. 493 ; iii. 62, 64, 68 

V. Oliver i. 243, 249 

V. Scott iii. 108, 117, 128, 139 

K. Walkey ii. 639 

V. West Br.inch Bank i. 57 

u. Williams iii. 12.3, 124, 133 

Load V. Green ii. 772 

Lobdell V. Baker i. 57 ; ii. 800 

V. Hopkins i. 534 ; ii, 649 

Ix)ck V. Miller ii. 742 

Locke V. North Am. Ins. Co. ii. 439 

V. Swan ii. 304 

V. United ''■'^^tes. ii. 25, 27 

Lockett V. Merch. Ins. Co. ii. 41 1 

Lockhart v. Barnard i. 22 

Lockridge v. Foster ii. 775, 786 

Lockwood V. Barnes iii. 36, 39 
i>. Crawford i. 260 
V. Ewer ii. 120; iii. i'72 
V. LaskcU ii. 232 
V. Salter i. 344 
I'. Thomas i. 362 
Lockyer v. Offley ii. 378, 484 
V. Savage iii. 517 
Loder v. Chesleyn i. 445 
Lodge V. Phelps ii. 588; iii. 436 
Lodwicks V. Ohio Ins. Co. ii. 449 
Loehner i\ Home Ins. Co. ii. 436 
Lueschman v, Machin ii. 125 
V. Williams i. 602 
Lofield's Case ii. 508 
Logan V. Austin ii. 687 
V. Birkett i. 358 
V. Bond i. 182, 183 
V. Hull i. 505 
V. Mason ii. 630, 633 
V. Mathews ii. 761 
V. McGinnis iii. 406 
u. Simmons i. 370 
V. Wicnholt iii. 356, 407 
Logs of Mahogany ii. 287, 293, 725 
Loir !). Bristow ii, 247 
Lokcr V. Damon iii. 178 
Lolley's Case ii. 603 
Lombard Bank !■, Thorp iii. 473 
London & Bir. Railwav Co. c. Win- 
ter " iii, 389, 408 
&B. R. Co, u. Fairciough iii 297, 
Gas Light Co, u. Nichols i. 11 
Londonderry v. Chester ii. 78, 81 ; iii. 


Long V. Allen ii. 538 

V. Colburn i. 54, 55, 68 

V. Hicks i. 576 

u. Miijcstre i. 166 

0. Preston i. 609 

V. Storie iii. 117 

V. Story i. 194 

& Wharton's Case iii. 141 

V. Younge i. 204 

Longley v. Gris^gs i. 36 

Longridge v. Dorrille i. 439, 442 ; ii. 686 

Lonsdale v. Brown i. 287, 442 

V. Littledale i. 103 

Loomis V. Bedel ii. 224, 226 

i,'. Cline i. 312 

u. Eagle Ins. Co. ii. 478 

u. Green ii 730 

V. Marshall i. 160, 161 

V. Newhall i. 311, 434; iii. 17 

V. Picrson i. 187 

Loop V. Loop i. 318 

Loohcmore v. Raijford iii. 186 

Lor.'iine v. Cartwright i. 81 

Lord, in re iii. 459 

V. Baldwin i. 206, 207 

V. Belknap ii. 530 



Lord V. Bigelow 
V. Dall 
V. Ferguson 
V. Goddard 
V. Jones 

i. 508 

ii. 368, 479 

ii. 275 

ii. 775 

iii. 246, 251 

V. Neptune Ins. Co. ii. 289, 297, 

380, 389 

V. Ocean Bank i. 257 

u. Stephens iii. 408 

u. Brig Watciiman iii. 426, 455, 


V. Wheeler ii. 524, 672 

Cochrane, The ii. 282, 285 

Nelson, The ii. 320 

Lorent v. Kentring ii. 201 

Lorillard v. Palmer ii. 295 

V. So. Car. Ins. Co. ii. 365 

Loiing y. Brackett ii. 715 

V. Cooke ii. 644 

V. Gurney ii. 545 

D. Manuf. Ins. Co. ii. 452 

V. Neptune Ins. Co. ii. 417 

u. Proctor ii. 350, 353 

V. Steinman ii. 484 

V. Thorndike ii. 599 

Loi-ymer v. Sraitli i. 523 

Losee v. Dunkin i. 260 

Lothrop V. Greenfield Ins. Co. ii. 424 

Lotty, The ii. 349 

Loud V. Citizens Ins. Co. ii. 403 

V. Pierce iii. 433 

Loudon V. Tiffany ii. 743 

Longhor Coal & Ry. Co. u. Williams 

ii. 496 
Louisa, The ii. 306 

Bertha, The ii. 283 

Louisiana, The, u. Fisher ii. 311 

Bank v, Kenner's Succes- 
sion i. 200 
State Bank v. Scnecal i. 77 
Louisville & Charleston R. R. Co. u. 

Letson i. 137 

Louisville & Frankfort R. R. Co. u. 

Ballard ii. 229 

Louisville Ins. Co. v. Bland ii. 386 

Manuf. Co. v. Welsh ii. 29 

Lounsbury v. Protection Ins. Co. ii. 425, 


Love V. Ilac'kott iii. 69 

V. Hinckley ii. 318 

V. Pares ii. 508 

Lovejoy v, Augusta Ins. Co. ii. 435 

V. Whipple ii. 759, 764 

Lovel r. Whitridge ii, 739 

Lovelace's Case iii. 468 

Lovell f. Briggs i. 135 

Loveland v. Shephard ii. 29 

Lovelock V. Franklyu . ii. 666, 675 ; iii. 

333, 346 

"• King ii. 57, 138 

Lovett V. Hobbs ii. I68 174 

Lovie's CasP i. 130 

Lovrein v. Thompson 

ii. 347 

Low V. Archer 

iii. 186 

V. Barcliard 

i. 436 

V. Blodgetc 

ii. 6 

V, Davy 

ii. 367 

V. Howard 

i. 271 

Lowber v. Le Roy 

ii. .501 

Lowe V. Beckwith 

ii. 13 

V. Griffiths 

i. 297 

V. Martin 

iii. 268 

V. Moss 

ii. 161, 185, 201 

V. Peers ii. 60, 73 ; iii. 164 

u. Waller iii. 108, 117, 508 

V. Weatherly i, 441 

Lowell V. Boston & Lowell R. R.- Co. 

i. 105, 108 

V. Daniels ii. 79P 

f. Gage i. 243 

u. Johnson iii. 120 

I/. Middlesex Ins. Co. ii. 433 ; iii. 


Lower v. Winters iii. 34, 36 

Lowers v. Mazzareddo iii. 118 

Lowery v. Scott i. 275 

Loweth V. Fothergill iii. 62 

Lowfield v. Bancroft i. 28 

Bowman's Ap])eal ii. 738 

Lowndes v. Lane i. 492 

Lowrey v. Murrell i. 266 ; ii. 622 

Lowry v. Adams ii. 4, 15 

V. Bourdieu ii. 359 

V. DufFerin iii. 395 

V. Francis iii. 523 

V. Gwilfoi'd i. 114 

u. Hall iii. 455 

u. Houston i. 341 , 342 

V. Mehafi'y ii. 529 

V. Steamboat Portland ii. 232 

Lowther u. Lowther i. 87 ; iii. 375 

Loyd a. Lee i. 432, 435, 442 

V. Mansell iii. 270 

Lubbock V. Inglis ii. 142 

V. Potts ii. 747 

Lucas V. Bank of Darien i. 170 

I'. Beach i. 146 

u. Beale i. 22 

V. Bristow ii. 539 

V. Chamberlain iii. 22 

V. Comcrford iii. 371 

V. De La Cour i. 54 

V. Dorrien i, 281 

V. Godwin i. 464 ; ii. 44, 660 

V. Groning i. 92, 94 

V. James iii. 416 

u. Jefferson Ins. Co. ii. 457 

V. Laws i. 209 

V. Novosilieski ii. 48 

V. Worswick i. 525 

Lucena v. Craufurd i. 49 ; ii. 339, 353 ; 

iii. 368, 438 

Lucey v. Ingram i. 105 

Luckctt V. Townsend ii. 120 



Luckett !'. "Williamson 
Lucy, ex parte 
V. Buiuly 
V. Levingtou 
Ludlow V. Cooper 
II. Gill 
i;. McCrea 
V. Van Rensselaer 

iii. 380, 382 

i. 439 

ii. 680 

i. 129, 130 

i. 150 

ii. 772 

i. 12 

ii. 570, 754 ; 

iii 345 

Ludlow, Mayor of, v. Charlton i. 139 

Luff i: Pope i. 268 

Luffkin V. Curtis i. 365 

Lulse n. Lyde ii. 298, 516 

Lnken's Appeal i. 122 

Lumley v. Gye ii. 48 

„. Wagner iii. 350, 373, 375, 408, 


Lummus v. Fairfield iii. 472 

Lund, ex parte iii. 457 

Lundie v. Robertson i. 271 

Lunn V. Tliornton i. 524, 57 1 

Lunsford !'. Coquillon i. 418 

Lunt V. Adams i. 266 

V. Stewart i. 27, 187 

V. Whi taker iii. 249 

Lupton ('. Wliite i. 88, 89, 100 

Lush V. Druse iii. 103 

V. Russell ii. 40 

Lusk V. Smith i. 194 

Lutz V. Linthicura ii. 694, 705 

Luxmore v. Robson iii. 233, 467 

Lyde v. Mynn iii. 369, 506 

Lyell V. Sanbouru i. 47 

Lygo V. Newbold ii. 222 

Lyle V. Barker iii. 202 

u. Murray iii. 92 

V. Rodgers ii. 690, 693 

Lylly's Case i. 315; ii. .50 

Lynian v. Brown ii. 726, 733 

V. Clark ii. 502, 714 

V. Lyman i. 202, 204 

V. United Ins. Co. ii. 354 

Lynch v. Bragg ii. 739 

u. CIcmence ii. 690 

t!. Commonwealth i. 113, 114 

V. Crowder ii. 3-37 

V. Livingston ii. 504 

V. Nurdin ii. 230, 231 ; iii. 182 

Lynde v. Budd i. 328 

Ljndon v. Gorham i. 206 

Lynn v. Bruce _ i. 29 

V. Burgoyno ii. 359 

Lj'nx V. King ii. 161 

I^yon V. Armstrong ii- 762 

V. Commercial Ins. Co. ii. 435, 778 

o. King iii. 38 

V. Knott ii- 599 

V. Lamb iii- 15 

V. Marshall iii. 523 

V. Mells ii. 238, 248 

V. Reed i. 509 ; ii. 798 

V. Richmond iii- 398 

Lyon I'. Smith 

ii. 145 

V. State Bank 

iii. 130 

I'. Strong 

ii. 759 

V. Sundius 

i. 267 

Lyons «. Barnes 

i. 539 

V. Martin 

i. 102 

Lysaght v. Walker 

iii. 16 

Lysatt V. Bryant 

i. 284 

Lysney c. Selby 

i. 580 

Lyte V. Pen-y 

i. 235 

Lytic V. Pope 

i. 36 

Lytton V. Lytton 

1 332 


Maanss v. Henderson i. 42 ; ii. 796 

Mabbett v. White i. 178 

Maber v. Massias iii. 2-i3 

Maberley v. Sheppard iii. 41, 49 

Maberly v. Turton i. 308 

Macandrews v. El. Tel. Co. ii. 173, 251 
Macarthur v. Campbell ii. 700 

Macbeth v. Haldinian i. 124 

Macclesfield v. Davis iii. 375 

Macdowall o. Fraser ii. 403 

Mace i'. Wells iii. 507 

Maghee v. Morgan i. 436; iii. 361 

Machir I: Moore ii. 757 

Machou V. Railway Co. ii. 175 

Macally's Ca>e ii. 757 

Mackay, in re ii. 690 

u. Bloodgood i. 1 10 

V. Holland i. 255 

Mackenzie v. Pooley ii. 275 

Mackersy v. liamsays i. 47 

Mackic !■. Cairns iii. 425, 426 

Maekinley v. McGregor i. 347 

Mackintosh v. Barber i. 88 

V. Mitchcson i. 78 

V. The SI. C. Railway 

Company ii. 533 

Mackrell v. Simond ii. 304 

Mackretli v. Symmons iii. 277 

Maclean u. Dunn i. 52, 534, 545, 550, 

592 ; iii. 1 1 

Macomber i'. Cambridge Ins. Co. ii. 439 

u. Durham iii. 105, 113 

u. Howard Ins. Co. ii. 423, 

424, 433 

V. Parker i. 526, 528 ; ii. 420 

V. Thompson ii. 345 

Macon v. Crump ii. 690, 694 

!■. Sheppard i. 453 

Macrorj' ;;. Scott iii. 4 

Mactier v. Frith i. 484 

Macv V. De Wolf ii. 270 

u. Whaling Ins. Co. ii. 356, 390, 

536. 541, 542 

Mad River, &c., R. R. Co. v. Fulton 

ii. 254, 256 
Maddeford v. Austwick i. 166 ; ii. 778 



Mailflcn 1'. Ivcmpster iii. 

Miuldock c. Hammett 

M.uloley f. Booth 

]\I;Mlcini ''. Hopkins 

Mailoniia D'lilra, The ii. 

J[:ie...tei- i\ Atkins 

Mngiilhacns v. Busher 

.Jlaf^LC r. Atkinson 

M.ifihce r. O'Neil 

Magill V. Hinsdale 

V. Mcrrie 
Magnay v. Edwards 
Magniac v. Thompson i. 

Mii^mus V. Buttetner 
Mji^o^s v. Ames 

M.igrath v. Chnrch ii. 

Mngrnder c. Union Bank 
Majjuirc v. Card 

V. Maguire ii. 601, 60.5 
Jlahoney v. Ashton i. 

c. Poitt;r 
Maliony v. Ashlin 
u. Young 
Mahui-in v. Biekford 
V. Pearson 
IMaiglcv V. Haner 
Mai'lliinl i: The Duke of Argyle 
Main V. Melbourne 
Maine Bank v. Butts iii.' 

Mainwaring r. Baxter 

V. Brandon 

u. Leslie 

r. Newman 

h\ Sands 
Mair p. Glennie 
Mairs r. Taylor 
Miiisoiinaire v. Keating 
IStajestic, The 
Major V. Hankes 
V. Tardos 
Makarell v. Bachelor 
Makepeace v. Coates i. 

I'. Harvard College 
Making v. Wclstrop 
Meakins, rx parte 
Malbon v. Southard 
Miileom r. Loveridge 
Maiden v. Fyson i 

Male V. Roberts 
Malcvere^' v. lledshaw 
Maley c. Sliattuek 
Malin V. Malin 
Malins p. Brown 

c. Freeman ii. 677 ; i 
Ma!l;\m V. Ardan 
Mallan v. May 
Mallctt v. Fo.Keroft 
Mallory v. Bird 

r. Willis 
Mallough V. Barber 
Malory o. Sillett 
M iltby. !x pann 

i. 157 


iii. 12.'i 

iii. 401 

iii. .3x7 

28.3, 341 

iii. 260 

ii. 288 

i. 64 

iii. 78 

i. .54 

i. 169 

i. 22 

370, 431 

ii. 376 

ii. 4 

331, 380 

i. 269 

ii. 264 

; iii. 547 

404, 419 

iii. 499 

i. 284 

iii. 223 

ii. 613 

ii. 739 

i. 430 

iii. 75 

iii. 394 

129, 133 

iii. 355 

i. 86 

i. 354 

i. 165 

i. 354 

; iii. 487 

ii. 121 

ii. 327 

ii. 295 

i. 200 

iii. 151 



i. 241, 

; ii. 735 

ii. .503 

• ii. 7i)U 



i. 520 

230, 4ii(') 

ii. 574 

i. 4.-i7 

ii. 789 

ii. 774 

iii. 394 

415, 417 

i. 507 

ii. 750 

ii. 731 

iii. 123 

ii. 134 

i. 86 

iii. 27 

iii. 518 

M'llthy r, Harwood 

ii. 48, 50 

Man, ex pai'te 

iii. 474 

u. Shiffner i 


; iii. 244 

Manby ;'. Long 

i. 138 

V. Seott i. 297, 

348, 356 

Manchester v. Hough 

i. 365 

V. Milne 

ii. 290 

Buuk 0. Fellows 


113, 278, 

V. White 

i. 281 

Iron Co. u. Sweeting ii. 24 

Mandel v. Steel 

ii. 740 

Manderston v. Robertson 

iii. 80 

Mandeville v. Welch i. 219, 222 

; iii. 280 

V. Wilson 

iii. 90 

ManccUy ;■. McGee 

ii. 624 

Manclla i: Barry 

i. 81 

ilaney v. Killough 

i. 53U 

Mangles r. Dixon 

i. 227 

Manhattan Co. u. Osgood 

iii. 134 

i\Ianly v. Peel 

iii. 313 

V. United Ins. Co. 

ii. 363 

Mann v. Forrester 

iii. 267 

V. Gorthold 


304, 347 

V. Huston 

iii. 447 

V. Lang 

iii. 337 

Manning v. Cox 

ii. 617 

V. Manning 

i. 122 

!'. Purcell 

ii. 627 

V. Wells 


146, 151 

Manrow v. Durham I 

. 10; iii. 16 

Mansell v. Burrcdge 

i. 13 

Manser r. Heaver 


Mansfield r. 31elntyre 

ii. 605 

V. Ogle 

iii. 108 

Manson v. Fclton 


385, 3S8 

Mantz V. Goring 

i. 504 

Manville v. Cleveland & Toledo R. 

R. Co. 

ii. 43 

Many v. Beekman Iron Co. 

ii. 500 

Miipies V. Wigbtman 

i. 295 

Marbury v. Brooks 

iii. 426 

Marcardier v. Chesapeake Ins 

Co. ii.300, 


17. Pigott 

ii. 364 

Marchant r. Dodgin 

iii. 121 

M.irchcssenn v. Chaffee 

iii. 206 

Marcy v. Sun Ins. Co. 


376, 407 

Mardall v. Thelusson 

ii. 7.38 

jMarden v. Babcock 

i. 530 

Jlardis u. Tyler 

i. 435 

jMare, ex parte 

iii. 505 

V. Charles 


. 57, 253 

Jlarcngo, The 

ii. 267 

Marfield v. Goodhue i. 72, 94, 


; iii. 191 

iMargaret, The 

ii. 321 

Margaret Podgcr's Case 

i. 51 

Marnet.son v. Wright 

i. 575 

Miiria, The i. 105 ; ii. 315, 344, 349, 399 
Maria v. Surbaugh i. 399, 400, 420 

Marie v. Avart i. 412 

Marie Louise v. Marot i. 401, 402, 413 



Marietta v. riearinp; iii. |J29 

Marine Dock & Mutual Ins. Co. v. 

Goodman ii. 386, 387 

Marine & F. Ins. Bank v. Jauneoy i. 245 

Marine Ins. Co. c. Stras ii. 413 

V. Tucker ii. 413 

V. U. S. Ins. Co. ii. 299 

Mariners v. AVasliington, Tlie ii. 342 

Marion, The ii. 261 

Mark V. Jones iii. 545 

Markham r. Brown ii. 150 

u. Jones i. 174 

V. Gonaston ii. 71 C 

Marklo !■• Hatfield i. 264 ; ii. 622 

Markman !■. Close i. 407 

Marks r. Barker iii. 483 

V. Hamilton ii. 439 

V. Morris iii. 127 

Marlow ;•. Pitficld i. 289, 3.52 

Marquand v. Hipper iii." 16 

I/. N. Y. Man. Co. i. 158, 195, 

197, 199 

Marquis of Chandos v. Comms. of 

Eev. iii. 328 

Huntley, The ii. 321 

Marr v. Johnson i. 257 

Marriott v. Shaw i. 207 

V. Stanley ii. 233 

Marryatt ;:. Binrterick i. 70 ; ii. 627 

Marryatts v. White ii. 633 

Marsdon u. Keid ii. 415 

Marseilles '■. Kenton iii. 89 

Marsh, ex parte. iii. 468, 520 

V. Blvthe ii. 312 

c\ Home ii. 242, 252 

V. Hutchinson i. 366 

1-. Hyde iii. 51 

u. Kcatinp: i. 49 

„. Marlindale iii. 108, 120, 129, 


V. Minnie, The ii. 265 

!>. Packer ii. 700, 710 

c. Putnam iii. 444 

V. Kulcsson ii. 36 

V. Ward i. H 

V. Wood ii. 712; iii. 471 

Marshall, ex parte iii. 505, 506 

u. Am. Express Co. ii. 183, 185 

u. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. 

Co. i. 440; ii. 755 

V. Betner iii. 165 

V. Broadhurst i. 129, 131 ; ii. 
V. Fall i. 602 

i^. Gamer ii. 325 

V. Hutchison iii. 426 

V. Lynn iii. 15 

V. Marshall i. 196 

U.Mitchell i. 271,277 

V. Nashville Ins. Co. ii. 378 
V. Pierce ii. 796 

V. Rutton "i. 370 

Marshall ;■. Smith i. 13 

V. Stevens i. 370 

V. York, N. &. B. Co. ii. 223 

Mnrson, ex parte iii. 516 

MiUstcUer i-. M'Clean iii. 94 

Marston <•. Allen i. 251 

Marston v. Hobbs i. 232 ; iii, 224 

Martha, Tlic ii. 294, ,"05 

Martha Wa.shington, The ii. 265 

MiUtin, ex parte iii. 479, 511 

v. Atkinpon iii. 222, 226, 229 

V. Baker i. 129 

c. Black's Ex'rs i. 441 

0. Bovd i. 243 

V. Brecknell ii. 634 ; iii. 507 

V. Broach iii. 69 

V. Chauntry i. 248 

V. Cotter i. 493 

u. Crokatt ii. 390 

t. Delaware Ins. Co. ii. 411, .541 

!'. Divclly iii. 413 

V. Fi.shinV Ins. Co. ii. 397, 410 

V. G. N. Ry. Co. ii. 220 

t'. Hawks ii. 736 ; iii. 270 

u. Hayes i. 262 

V. Hcathcote iii. 89 

V. Hewson ii- 627 

V. Hill ii. 592 

V. Lonp: iii 224 

u. Martin i. 359 

V. Matliiot i. 53S 

V. Mayo i. 324 

V. Mayor, &c., of Brooklyn ii. 144 

V. McCormick iii. 399 

u. Mitchell iii. 9, 410, 413 

V. Nicolls ii. 609 

!'. Nigliiingale iii. 4G0 

V. Nutkin iii. 376 

V. Porter iii. 200 

I.. Pycroft iii. 387, 389 

V. Roberts ii. 781 

V. SMlem Ins. Co. ii. 30H 

V. StiwcU ii. 358 

u. Rtribling ii. 8 

r. Tcmperley i. 104 

I', Thornton ii. 699 

V. Williams ii. 689, 690 

V. Winslow i. 269 

0. Wright ii. 23, 48 

Martin's Heirs v. Martin ii. 82 

Martindale c. Booth iii. 249 

V. FoUet ii. 721 

V. Smith i. 598 

Martini v. Coles i. 93 

Marvin v. Bates iii. 99 

V. Titsworth iii. 421 

V. Trumbull i. 153 

V. Wallis i. 41 

Marvine v. Hymers iii. 128, 131, 136 

Marwick, in re i. 212 

Mary, The ii. 278, 283, 326, 327, 328, 

342, 588 



Mary v. Brown 

i. 418 

Mathews v. Monedger 

iii. 260 

Ann, The 


283, 346 

Mathewson v. Clarke 

i. 1.55 

Caroline, The 

ii. 334 

Mathewson's Case 

i. 12 

Hale, The 

ii. 317 

Matilda v. Crenshaw 

i. 208 

Paulina, The 

ii. 342 

Matlock V. Gibson 

i. 228 

Pleasants, The 

ii. 320 

V. Matlock 

i. 150 

Maryland v. Bank of Md. 

iii. 426 

Matson v. Wharam 

iii. 20 

Maryland Ins. Co. o. Kudun 

ii. 402 

Matthews, ex parte 

ii. 275, 280 

V. Le Roy 

ii. 411 

u. Bliss 

i. 579 

Marzetti v. Williams i. 81 


; iii. 219 

V. Coalter 

ii. 724 

Maseal's Case 

i. 23-2 

V. Cribbctt 

ii. 70 

Mason v. Armita^e 


369, 416 

V. Felgh 

i, 162 

V. Blau-cau, The ii. 316, 


V. Houghton 

ii. 482 

320, 322 

u. Chambers i. 500 ; ii. 528, 530 

u. Connel i. 154, 167, 196 

V. Crosby ii. 786 

V. Dcnison iii. 462 

V. Dennison i. 329 

V. Farneil i. 127 

K. Franklin Ins. Co. ii. 361, 418 

V. Haile iii. 438 

V. Harvey ii. 461 

V. Knowlson ii. 736 

u. Joseph i. 83, 84 

V. Liekbarrow i. 534 ; iii. 256 

V. Martin i. 87 

V. Mason ii. 485 

V. Pritchard ii. 510 

V. Robinson ii. 558 

a. Thompson ii. 146, 15], 153, 


V. White ii. 558 

V. Wright i. 297 

Massasoit, The ii. 341 

Massey y. Davios i. 89, 100 

Massie v, Sebastian ii. 791 

V. Watts iii. 378 

Massiter v. Cooper ii. 226 

Masson v. Bovet ii. 680, 781 

Massy v. Vauney iii. 327 

Masterman v. Cowrie ii. 110, 134 

Masters, in re ii. 766 

V. B.aretto i. 272 

V. Madison Co. Ins. Co. ii. 433, 


u. Masters ii. 556 

0. Warren iii. 167 

Master v. Miller i. 226 ; ii. 717, 720, 766 

Masterton v. Mayor of Brooklyn iii. 184, 

185, 187, 192 

Matchin v. Matchin ii. 85 

Matern v. Gibbs ii. 347 

Mather v. Bush iii. 436, 438 

0. Maidstone i. 264 

c. Noy ii. 83 

Matheson v. Koss iii. 344 

Mathews v. Aikin ii. 5 

V. Davis iii. 221, 222 

V. Howard Ins. Co. ii. 449 ; iii. 


i>. Lewis iii. 142 

V. Howard Ins. Co. ii. 377 

V. Milton ii. 1 1 

V. Offley ii. 344 

- V. Parker i. 591 

ti. Poythnesa , i. 255 

Mathewson v. Johnson i. 294, 322 

Matthie v. Potts ii. 367 

Mattison «. Westcott ii. 647 

Mattock V. Kinglake ii. 529 

Mattox V. Craig iii. 215, 216 

Mattoon v. Poarce iii. 203 

Maud V. Waterhouse i. 443 

Maudslay r. Le Blanc i. 145, 146 

Maule V. Murray ii. 607, 608 

Mauddrell, ex ;ja?-;e iii. 491 

Mauusell ;;. White iii. 30 

Maury v. Talmadge ii. 220, 222 

Maving v. Todd ii. 143, 179, 238 

Mavor v. Pyne ii. 518, 658; iii. 39, 100 

Mawdesley v. Parke iii. 455 

Mawe V. Samuel ii. 700 

Mawson v. Blane i. 323 

Maxwell v. Dcare ii. 625 

V. Goodrum i. 248 

V. Jameson i. 220 

V. Mcllvoy ii. 145 

Maxwell v. Robinson ii. 415 

Ma.xim ;;. Morse i. 381 

May V. Babeock ii. 290, 555 

V. Breed iii. 440, 450, 455, 456 

V. Calder i. 134 

V. Campbell iii. 144, 147 

V. Christie ii. 416 

u. Coffin i. 437 

0. Harvey iii. 524 

V. May i. 20 

V. Princeton ii. 230 

V. Smith iii. 297 

V. Woodward i. 12, 30, 31 

Mayall u. Mitford ii. 427 

Maybin v. Coulon ii. 695 

V. Railroad Co. ii. 177 

Maydew v. Forester i. 33 

Mayell r. Potter ii. 296 

Mayfiold v. Wadsley i. 455 ; ii. 518 ; iii 

18, 33 

Mayham v. Coombs iii. 278 

Mayhew v. Boyce ii. 232 

u. Boyd ii. 17 



Majhew v Crickett 

i. 36, 187 

V Eames 

i. 77 

u. Mayliow 
V. Teny 
Maynard v. Hunt 
V. Rhodes 

ii. 83 

ii. 337 

ii. 642 

ii. 472, 771 

V. Wright 
Maynell v. Surtocs 
Mayne v. Griswold 

ii. 497 

iii. 396 

iii. 99 

Mayo V. Archer 

iii. 460 

V. Marine Ins. Co. 

ii. 370 

V. Snow 

ii. 301 

Mayor v. Humphries 
u. Johnson 

ii. 228 
ii. 292 

V. Lefferman 

i. 395 

V. Steward 

iii. 492 

V. Williams 

i. 436 

&c. of Alexandria v. Patten ii. 629 
Berwick-upon-Tweed v. 

Oswald ii. 17, 688 

Camhridge v. Dennis ii. 17 

New York v. Bailey i. 105, 


V. Colgate iii. 100 

Norw. V. Norf. Railway 

Co. ii. 529 

Mayor of Thetford's Case i. 138 

May Queen, The ii. 338 

Mays V. Cannel ii. 696 

Mayson v. Beazeley i. 204 

Maze V. Miller ii. 685 

Miizozon V. Foot iii. 96 

McAUester v. Sprague i. 28 

McAllister v. Gallalier ii. 628 

u. Hoffman ii. 628, 756 

u. Reab ii. 740 

McAlpine v. Wingard i. 256 

McArthur v. Scars ii. 159, 190, 169, 172 

McAuley v. Billinger i. 454 

McBride v. Gray iii. 69 

V. Hagan i. 186; ii. 690 

V. McClelland i. 530 

u. M'Laughlin iii. 167, 172 

McCaU's Case i. 122, 123 

0. Clayton i. 54 

c7. Flowers ii. 124 

1/. Hinckley iii. 426, 449 

McCallen v. Adams i. 361 

McCandish v. Newman i. 525 

McCargo v. Mercliants Ins. Co. ii. 365 

o. N. 0. Ins. Co ii. 378 

McCartee v. Camel ii. 484 

V. Teller i. 331 

McCarthy v. Goold i. 225 

McCarty v. Emlen i. 207 

V. Blcvins i. 523 

V. Murray i. 295 

McCaskill v. Ballard i. 290 

McClane v. Fitch i. 280 

McClintick v. Cummina i. 395 

McClure v. McClure iii. 359, 406 

V. Richardson ii. 165 

McClure!). Williams iii. 121 

McClures v. Hammond ii. 165 

McCoU V. Oliver i. 165 

McComb V. Wright i. 1 1 1 

M'Combie ;;. Davies i. 93; iii. 254 

McConihe i\ McMann i. 456 

McConicko v. N. J. & E. R. R. Co. i. 527 

McConuell v. Dunlap iii. 230 

i>. Gibson i. 87 

V. Hampton iii. 175 

V. Hector i. 200 

McConochie v. Sun Ins. Co. ii. 390, 391 

McCormick v. Barnum ii. 797 

V. Connoly ii. 58 

V. Sullivant ii. 571 ; iii. 456 

0. Trotter i. 248 

McCoy V. Artcher i. 575 

V. Huffman i. 315 

McCracken v. Haywood iii. 551, 557 

V. West ii. 780 

McCrea v. Purmort iii. 9 

McCready v. Freedly i. 12 

V. Goldsmith ii. 312 

McCreight v. Aiken i. 311, 313 

McCrillls V. Bartlett i. 385, 387 ; iii. 461 

i>. How i. 313 

McCulloch V. Dashiell i. 212 

V. Eagle Ins. Co. i. 433, 484 ; 

ii. 420 

V. Judd iii. 89 

V. McKee i. 51 

McCullough V. Cox ii. 532 

V. Henderson iii. 76 

V. ilycrs ii. 690 

V. Somerville i. 184; iii. 426 

McCuUum V. Gourlay ii. 627 

McCurry v. Hooper i. 387 

McCutchen v. Marshall i. 420 

I/. McGahay i. 347, 352, 353, 


McDaniel v. Cornwell i. 366 

u. Flower Brook Manuf. 

Co. ii. 5 

V. King ii. 580 

McDaniell v. Bell ii. 690 

McDaniels v. Barnum iii. 126 

V. Lapham ii. 686 

V. Robin.son ii. 147, 154 

McDermot v. Lawrence i. 153 

McDoal V. Yeomans ii. 3 

McDonald v. Bacon ii. 693 

V. Black ii. 441 

V. Edgerton i. 149, 151, 154 

V. Eggleston i. 1 10 

V. Hewctt i. 528 

V. Magvuder i. 257 

V. Morton i. 386 

u. Napier iii. 2(i9 

V. Pope i, 509 

V. Bainor ii. 733 

McDonnell v. Branch Bank iii. 92 

McUonold V. Hodge iii. 215 



McDou!;nl f. Piiton iii. 507 

MeUowall v. Wool i. 366 

McDowcl V. Chambers iii. 9 

;;. Simms i. 497 
McDowell V. The Blackstone Canal 

Co. ii. 6.?a 

V. Rissell ii. 137 

JleDowle's Case ii. -^0 

McElfatrick r. Hicks iii. 128 

McElruv V. Nashua & Lowell R. U. 

Corp.' ii. 229 

McElweo V. Collins iii. 147 

McEveis c. M:i-un i. 267 

McEwan r. Montfjomery Ins. Co. ii. 438 

V. Smith i. 59.i, 607 

McFarlaiid c. Newman i. .')81 

McFee v. S. Car. Ins. Co. ii. 413 

WcUuliay l\ Williams i. 35G 

HicGan r. Miirshall i. 29.i 

McGee v. Metcalf ii. 26 

McGill V. Ronaiia ii. 174, 2,-,5, 2.i6 

V. Ware iii. 118, 134 

McGilverv v. Capon ii 302 

McGinn r. Shaelfer i. 3.-10 

McGinnis i\ Foster i. 375 

w. I'oiitiac, Tlie ii. 318, 320 

MoGirney '•- Phnenix Ins. Co. ii. 438 

McGoon V. Ankeiiy i. 526 : ii. 96, 767 

MoGowin V. Remington iii. 37.5 

McGrath v. Robertson i. 367 

McGregor i:. Penn i. 581 

V. Rliorles i. 244 

McGrew v. Biowder i. 520 

McGnider v. B:ink of Washington i. 274 

McGuire v. Rosworth i. 24') 

V. Newkirk ii. 14 

V. Ramsey i. 152 

V. Wanier iii. 114 

McHenry c. Dnfflcld i. 68 

0. Railway Co. ii. 183 

Mcllvaine «. Harris iii. 33 

V Wilkins iii. 103 

McInclFe v. Wheelock ii. 640 

Mclntire c. Carver iii. 254 

!■. Patton ii. 797 

Mclatyre v. Au-ricnltural Bank iii. 421 

V. Bowne ii. ! 83 

II. Parks i. 52.5 

c. Williamson ii. 502 

Mclver v. Humble i. 189 

V. Ricliardson i. 478; ii. 12 

McJilton V. Love i. 227 ; ii. 726 

^IcKay V. Bryson ii. 48 

u. Green iii. 282 

McKee i\ Barley iii. 358 

McKeen v. Allen ii. 692 

V. Gammon iii. 2.32 

V. Ohpliant ii. 695 

McKenna v. George i. 33, 35 

McKenzie o.Durant i. 272, 283 

u. Hancock i. 592 

V. McLeod i. 505 

McKenzie r. Stevens i. .302 

McKeon v. Caherty ii. 469j. 756 

.McKesson V. Stanhury i. 290 

McKinlay v. Morrish ii. 291 

McKinley v. Watkins i. 441, 44'J 

McKinney v. .Mvis i. 220 

V. Crawford i. 256 

V. Fort i. 577 

V. Neil ii. 220, 224, 229 

V. Page ii. 7i)B 

V. Pinckard i. 4(l.'i 

McKnight v. Dunlop ii. 518, 524, 659 ; 

iii. 5t 

v. Hogg i. 315 

McLane v. Sharpe ii. 232 

McLaren r. Watson ii. 4 

McLauclilin v. Lomas ii. 124, 128 

McLaughlin v. Hill iii. 189 

V. Waite ii. 97 

McLearn v. McLellan iii. 277 

JIcLcllan, in re iii. 468 

u. Cumberland Bank i. 28 

McLcmore r. Powell i. 285 

McLeod V. Burroughs iii. 5.36 

V. McUhie iii. 287 

McLure v. Ashby iii. 99 

f. Rush ii. 530 

McJIahon v. Portsmouth Ins. Co. ii. 421, 


McManus v. Crickett i. 102, 103 

V. L. & Y. Ry. Co. ii. 247 
McMasters u. Westchester Co. Ins. 

Co. ii. 461 

McMickcn v. Bcauchamp ii. 723 

McMillan v. McNeil iii. 553, .^.H 

!;. Vanderlip ii. 36 

McMinn v. Richmonds i. 295, 313 

.McMurry v. The State ii. 649 

JlcNau- t. Gilbert i. 292 

McNairy v. Bell i. 272 

V. Thompson ii. 501 

McNamara c. King iii. 172 

McXaughter v. Casally iii. 209, 210 

JliXaugliton V. Partridge iii. 398 

IMcNcar v. Bailey ii. 691 

MeXcil y. Colquhoon iii. 455 

!'. Magee iii. 355 

v. Reed iii. 184 

McNeill 0. McDonald i. 255 

McNcille V. Aeton i. 201 

McNeilly v. Patchia i. 36 

i'. Reid i. 156 

McPherson v. Rathbone i. 175 

V. Rees i. 434 

>:. \\'altcrs ii. 797 

McQueen v. Farquhar i. 495 

McQuewans v. Hamlin i. 186 

McWhortor v. McJlahan iii. 13 

iMcWilliams v. Hopkins ii. 73G 

M'Allistcr e. Rcab iii. 102 

JM'Artbur v. Seaforth • iii. 198, 205 

iM'Bride i: Marine Ins. Co. ii. 305, 327, 392 



M'Cahe V. Moreliead iii. 203, 204 

M'Carty v. Colvin ii. 626 

!/. Deciiix ii. 603 

M'Clarin v. Ncslnt ii. 622 

M'Comb V. Wntilit iii. 12 

M'Conui;! r. Hall ii. 647, 6.'i4 

M'Cred c. Purmort ii. 790 

M'Cullodi c. .M'Culloch ii. 598 

u. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 

ii. .3.58 
AI'Daniel v. Hnglies ii. 607 

M'Dermott v. S. G. Owens, The, ii. 204 
0. V. S. lus. Co. ii. 696 

M'Donald v. Scait'e iii. 204 

V. Tmfton ii. 771 

M'Donoui>;h v. Uannery ii. 317 

M'Donnell o. Carr ii. 488 

M'DowcU V. Tyson ii. 738 

M'Elmoyle o. Cohen ii. 590 

M'Ewan v. Smith iii. 488 

M'Fadden v. Jeiil^yns iii. 360 

M'Gaw V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 289, 294, 

M'Gillivray i: Simson ii. 743 ; iii. 243 
M'Gregor v. Ins. Co. of Penn. ii. 357, 

538, 547 
M'Hard v. Whetcroft ii. 642 

M'Intyre v. Carver ii. 138 

u. Parks ii. 570 

V. Scott ii. 280 

M'lver V. Humble ii. 275 

M'Kenzic v. Hancock iii. 212 

V. Nevins ii. 633 ; iii. 266 

M'Kesson v. M'Dowell iii. 134, 135 

M'Kinstry v. Solomons ii. 691 

M'Lanahan v. Universal Ins. Co. ii. 403, 
405, 407, 408 
M'Leles v. Hale iii. 38 

M'Lellan v. Maine Ins. Co. ii. 399, 417 
M'Mechen's Lessee v. Grandy iii. 486 
M'Mcnomy v. FeiTcrs iii. 426, 469 

M'Millan v. M'Neil iii. 437, 441 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 349, 406 
M'Nitt V. Clark ii. 657 

M'Queen v. Burns iii. 114 

M'Quirk v. Penelope, The ii. 339 

Meach v. Meach i. 236 

Mead v. Davidson i. 363 ; iii. 374 

V. Degolyer ii. 524, 659 

u. Small i.271 

V. Wheeler iii. 160 

e. Young i. 250 

Header 2 Scott ii. 739 

Meadows s. Meadows iii. 12 

V. Tanner iii. 414 

Meaghan, in re iii. 493 

Meany y.' Head iii. 2.34 

Meason D. Pliilips iii. 215, 216 

Mechanics Bank v. Bank of Colum- 
bia i. 54 
V. Earp ii. 104 
V. Edwards iii. 122 

Mechanics Bank v. Griswold i. 271 

V. Merchants Bank 

i. 85; U. 103 
w.NewYork&N. H. 
K. R. Co. i. 44, 45, 
46, 291 
of Alexa. v. Scton 

iii. 370, 375, 376 
Mechanics & Farmers Bank v. Ciip- 

ron iii. 507 

Mechanics & Traders Bank v. Del«jlt 

iii. 532, 545 

II. Gordon 

ii. 106,180 

Mechelen v. Wallace i. 455 

V. Williams iii. 17 

Medbury v. Hopkins ii. 570, 591 

V. Watrous i. 315, 220 ; ii. 37 

Mcddlemore v. Goodale i. 231 

Medeiros v. Hill ii. 399 

Medina v. Stoaghton i. 573 

Medley v. Hughes ii. 296 

Medlin v. Piatt County ii. 719 

Medway v. Needham ii. 593, 598 

Meech v. Robinson ii. 325 

u. Smith i. 69 ; iii. 102 

Meek v. Atkinson i. 393 

V. Kettlewell iii. 360 

Meeker v. Jackson i. 292 

Meert v. Moessard i. 21 8 

Megginson !.-. Harper iii. 86 

Meggs K. Binns i. 114 

Meg'rath v. Mut. Ins. Co. ii. 367 

V. Robertson iii. 4h2 

Melan v. Fitz James ii. 589 ; ii. 436 

Mclancon v. Robichaux i. 584 

Meldrum v. Snow i. 538 

Melledgo v. Boston Iron Co. ii. 624 

Mellen v. Boarman ii. 738 

V. Hamilton Ins. Co. ii. 356, 

372, 458 

McUerish v. Rippin i. 284 

Mellish !). Andrews ii. 415 

V. Mottcux i. 590 ; ii. 273 

V. Simeon i. 283 

Mellona, The ii. 314 

Mellor V. Spateman iii. 218, 219 

Melody v. Chandler i. 57 1 

Melville v. Brown iii. 275 

V. De Wolf ii. 40 

V. Hayden ii. 509 

Melvin v. Proprietors, &c. on Mer. 

River ii. 506 

Memphis & Ch. R. R. Co. o. Jones i. 409 
Menard i;. Scudder i. 501, 503 

Mendel, ex parte iii. 465 

Menetone v. Athawes ii. 131 

Menham v. Edmonson iii. 469 

Menifee's Adm'rs v. Menifee i. 379 

Mentor, The ii. 340 

Mentz V. Renter i. 344 

Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Chase ii. 235 




Jlercantile Ins. Co. u. State Ins. Co. 

ii. 357, 373 

Mevcein v. Smith ii. 738 

Mercer v. Oilman i. 418, 419 

V. Irving iii- 158 

V. Jones iii. 195, 196 

i>. Seldeu iii. 95 

«>. WhaU ii. 40 

Merchant, The ii. 321 

Merchants, &c. v. Grant i. 324 

Merchants Bank v. New Jersey Steam 

Nav. Co. ii. 236 

V. Spalding iii. 399 

V. Spicer ii. 623 

Ins. Co. V. Clapp ii. 358 

Meredith v. Gilpin ii.' 732 

V. Hinsdale ii. 589 

V. Meigh iii. 48 

Meres v. Ansell ii. 548 

Merest v. Harvey iii. 172 

Meretony v. Dnnlope ii. 367 

Mercwethor v. Shaw ii. 72 

Merithew v. Sampson ii. 325 

Meriwether v. Bird ii. 734 

Merle v. Andrews i. 397 

V. Wells ii. 21 

Merriam v. Bayley i. 382 

V. Cunningham i. 298 

V. Granite Bank i. 255 

V. Hartford, &c. Railroad 

Co. ii. 176, 180 

u. Wilkins i. 324 

Merrick v. Avery ii. 272 

V. Gordon i. 157 

Merrick's Case iii. 481 

Estate i. 123 ; iii. 455, 470 

Merril v. Frame ii. 516 

Merrill v. Bartlctt ii. 270 

V. Boylston Ins. Co. ii. 413 

V. Gore ii. 501 

V. Merrill iii. 164 

u. Smith i. 345 

Merrills v. Law iii. 113, 116 

Merrimack Co. Bank v. Bro\vu ii. 18, 


Merrimack, The ii. 398 

Merriman v. Col. Butts, The ii. 271 

Merritt c. Benson iii. 13G 

u. CMiigliorn ii. 146 

V. Clason iii. 7, 9 

V. Eiulc ii. 160 

V. Jolin.son ii. 132, 259 

V. Pollys i. 194, 204 

I. Seaman i. 131 

o. Todd i. 260 

Merse v. Seymour iii. 353 

Mershon v. Hobensack ii. 158, 160, 163, 

Merry v. Prince ii. 354 

Merrywether v. Nixan i. 37 

Merwin v. Butler ii. 168 

Mertens v. Adcock i. 534 

Mcrtens v. Winnington 

i. 287 

Mesner v. Suffolk Bank 

ii. 317 

Messenger v. Clarke 

i. 345 

V. Southey 

i. 283 

Messer v. Woodman 

i. 528 

Messier v. Araery 

i. 95 

Mestaer v. Gillespie 


382, 401 

Metcalf V. Bruin 

ii. 20 

V. Cook 

i. 369 

Metcalf V. Hess 

ii. 147 

V. Ives 

ii. 691 

V. Pilcher 


144, 147 

0. St'holey 

iii. 484 

V. Taylor 

ii. 501 

Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft 

iii. 362 

V. Parry 

ii. 414 

0. Richardson 

i. 284 

V. Shaw 

i. 348 

Mettler v. Moore 

iii. 216 

Mews V. Carr 

iii. 13 

Meu.x V. Humphries 

i. 187; ii. 753 

Me.xl)orough v. Bower 

ii. 708 

Mey V. So. Car. Ins. Co. 



Meyer v. Everth 

i. 547 

V. Haworth 

i. 435 

V. louac ii. 506, 507, 509 

Meyniot, ex parte iii. 460, 549 

Muynell f. Surtees i. 475 

Muvrick V. Anderson i. 132 

Michael v. Mills in. 227 

V. Tredwin ii. 410 

Michaell v. Stockworth i. 27 

Michclon v. Wallace iii. 33 

Michigan Central R. R. u. Ward 

ii. 190, 195 

V. Hale ii. 195 

&c. R. R. Co. V. Caster iii. 193 

State Bank v. Hastings iii. 532 

Michoud V. Girod i. 88 

Micklewaite c. Winter ii. 120 

Mickles v. Colvin i. 259 

Middlesex, The ii. 295, 307 

Middlebrook v. Corwin i. 510, 512 

Middlebury College v. Chandler i. 297 

Middleton v. Bryan iii. 203 

V. Hill ii. 736 

u. Janverin ii. 593 

.,. Weeks ii. 699 

V. Welles ^ i. 86 

Bank v. Jerome i. 242 

Middlewood y. Blakes ii. 411 

Midglcy V. Lovelace i. 22, 232 

Midland Ry. Co. o. Bromley ii. 177 

Milan and R. Plank R. Co. v. Husted 

iii. 545 

Milboum v. Ewart ii- 716 

Milburn v. Beach iii. 172 

V. Codd i. 164 

V. Gayther i. 174 

Mildmay v. Folgham ii- 356 

Miles V. Cattle ii. 157 

u. Conn. Ins. Co. ii. 466 



Miles V. Durnfoid i. 129 

V. Gorton i. 602, 608 ; iii. 247, 257 

w. Williams iii. 482 

Milford V. Worcester ii. 76 

Mill Dam Foundery v. Hovey ii. 532, 533 

Millar v. Hall iii. 437, 443 

Millen v. Dent iii. 345 

Millard v. Kamsdoll i. 202 

Millaudon v. Atlantic Ins. Co. ii. 442 

t). N. 0. In.s. Co. ii. 446 

V. Western Ins. Co. ii. 453, 457 

Miller v. Adsit ii. 95 

V. Austen i. 248 

V. Baker i. 513 

V. Bartlet i. 160 

V. Berkey ii. 23 

V. Clietwood i. 492 

V. Cook iii. 16 

V. Covert ii. 620 

V. Drake i. 431, 448, 468, 537 

V. Eagle Life Ins. Co. ii. 478, 480 

I'. Gaston ii. 3 

V. Goddard ii. 36, 526 

17, Hackley i. 286 

V. Hines i. 184 

V. Howell ii. 775 

V. Hull iii. 121 

V. Kelley ii. 317 

V. Kennedy ii. 706 

V. Manice i. 182 

V. Mariner's Church iii. 178 

!/. Marston iii. 250 

V. McBrier i. 507 

V. McClain ii. 653 

V. Miller i. 236, 237 ; ii. 696 ; 

iii. 91 

V. Pelletier iii. 10 

V. Pittsbmg & Cleveland E. R. Co. 

ii. 533 

V. Piatt ii. 797 

V. Race i. 242, 254, 290 ; iii. 274 

V. Sawyer i. 35 

V. Sims i. 315 

u. Smith i. 609 

V. Steam Nav. Co. ii. 161, 184, 197 

V. Stem ii. 26 

V. Stewart ii. 15 

V. Thompson ii. 509 

V. Travers i. 500 ; ii. 551, 563, 564 

V. Whittier i. 224 

Millett V. Parker ii. 9 

Milligan v. Cooke iii. 382, 401, 402 

V. The B. F. Bruce ii. 338 

V. Wedge i. 104 

Milliken v. Brown i. 27, 28; ii. 618 

V. Loring i. 204 

0. Milliken iu. 408, 410 

Millikin v. Brandon iii. 460 

Millonw. Salisbury ii. 121 

Millot V. Lovett ii. 338 

Mills, ex parte iii. 464 

V. Ball i. 602 

Mills V. Bank of U. S. i. 85, 276, 283, 284 ; 

u. 538, 545 

ti. Barber i. 178, 179, 184 

V. Bell iii. 226 

V. Catlin ii. 502, 506 

V. Dennis i. 134 

V. Duryee ii. 609, 610 

V. Fowkes ii. 630 ; iii. 73, 76 

V. Graham i. 318 

V. Hunt i. 497 ; iii. 44 

V. Hyde i. 35 

V. Lee i. 439 

V. Oddy i. 495 

V, Ladbrooke i. 16, 25 

V. Shult ii. 288 

V. Voorhees iii. 383 

V. Williams iii. 529 

V. Wright ii. 514 

V. Wyman i. 311, 434 

Millard !•. Littlewood ii. 65, 67 

Miln V. Spinola ii. 271, 280 

Milne v. Gratrix ii. 710, 711 

V. Huber i. 459 

V. Moreton, ii. 571 ; iii. 453, 455, 481 

Milner v. Harewood i. 331 

V. Milncs i. 343 ; iii. 481 

V. Tucker i. 593 

Milnes v. Cowley i. 436 

V. Gery ii. 708 ; iii. 377, 405 

Milton V. Mosher i. Ill, 569 

V. Rowland i. 592 

Miltonberger v. Beacom ii. 439, 433 

Milward v. Hibbert ii. 363 

Mima Queen u. Hepburn i. 404 

Minard v. Mead i. 55, 352 

Miner !). Bradley ii. 519 

v. Gaw i. 184 

V. Harbeck ii. 343 

V. Hoyt i. 256 

V. Tagert ii. 369 

Miners Bank v. United States iii. 532, 536 

Minerva, The ii. 316, 337, 346 

Minet, ex parte iii. 14, 505, 507 

Minett v. Forrester i. 72 

Minnit i: Whinery i, 167, 180 

Minns v. Morse iii. '57 

Minor v. Michie ii. 649 

u. Walter ii. 741 

Minot V. Thayer iii. 521 

Minturn «. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 370 

V. Seymour i. 493 

V. Warren Ins. Co. , ii. 362 

Miranda v. City Bank of N. Orleans i. 85 

Misner v. Granger i. 587 

Missroon v. Waldo i. 584 

Missouri v. Iowa ii. 797 

Missouri's Cargo, The ii. 315 

Mitchel V. Ede i. 605 

Mitchell V. Beal i. 530 

ii. Billingsley iii. 172 

V. Burton ii. 18 

V. Gotten ii. 26 



Mitchell V. Cross i. 280 

V. Cragg ii. 686 
V. Dall 1. 167; ii. 630, 634 

V. Durthez ii. .516 

V. Degrand i. 280 

V. EJie ii. 383 

V. Fuller i. 252 

V. Gile i. 521 

V. Harris ii. 708 

V. Hazeii iii. 224 

V. Hughes iii. 469, 477, 482 
V. Kingman i. 384 ; ii. 554 

V. Lapage i. 546 

V. Lemore iii. 92 

V. iMurrill ii. 653 

V. M'MiUan iii. 455 

V. Minis i. 74; ii. 124 

o. Ni-whall ii. 539 

V. Oldfleld ii. 736 

V. Poiin. R. R. Co. ii. 43 

V. Hi-'Viiokls ii. 74'.i, 752 

V. Roulstone i. 175 

V. Sellman iii. 66, 70 

V. Smith i. 458 
t^. St. x\ndrew's Bay Land Co. 

i. 52 

!•. Taylor ii. 265 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 478 

V. Warner i. 129, 232 

<■ Williamson i. 430 

V. Wilson iii. 385 

!■. Winslow -iii. 468, 484 

V. ^A'crden ii. 773 

Mitcheson i: Oliver ii. 275 

Mitford (,-. Milford i. 342; iii. 468, 481 

0. Wakot i. 287 

Mixer ". Cuijurn i. 465, 57 7 

D. llowarth iii. 55 

Mizen n. Pick i. 351 

Moak V. Johnson iii. 232 

Moale V. Biu-hanan iii. 387, .'197 

Mobley !'. Lombat i. 206 

Mock V. Kullcy ii. 56 

Mockhee r. Gardner i. 575 

Moekman v. .'^iiepherdson ii. 41 

Modilrwrll r. Kcrver i. 154, 178 

ModerWL-II r. .Mnllison i 149 

Mocns /■. lleyuortli ii. 770,771 

Mochring v. Miu/liell ii. 483 

Moffat 0. M'Dowell iii. 426 

(,. Par^(lns i. 47 ; ii. 615, 040 

!■ Smith i. 501 

r. Ward ii, 366 

Moggridge, er parte iii. 50S 

f. Davis iii, 516 

r. Jones i. 465 

Mohawk Bank v. Broderick i, l'GI 

V. Burrows ii, 736 

Bridge Co. p. Utica & 

Sch. R. R. Co. ii. 507 

Moies V. Bird i. 244 

Moir V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. ii. 400 

1 Moliere n. Noe ii!. 513 

Molineux, ex parte iii, 464 

Mbller v. Young ii. 293 

Mollet V. Brayne ii, 793 

Mollett V. Whackerbarth ii. 717, 718 

M.jlloy i\ Ji^m iii. 355, 386, 416 

JMolony V. Kernan i. 87 

llolson I . Hawley i. 257 ; iii. 495 

Molton V. Camroux i. 386 ; iii, 461 

Molyn'd Case ii. 504, 506 

Monerief v. Ely i. 312 

Moncrieff v. Goldsborough iii. 3.^5 

Moncure v. Dcrmott iii. 144 

Mondel v. Steel i. 464 

Monk V. Clayton i. 42, 44 

Monnell o. Burns ii. 41 

Monro !', Da Chemant i. 71 

Monroe v. Conner i. 7S1 

(J. DougUis ii. 611 

Montacute u. Maxwell ii. 72 ; iii. 13, 29, 


Montague v. Benedict i. 348, 351 

!'. Espinnasse i. 347 

V. Perkins i, 241 

p. Smith ii. 700 

Montany v. Rock i. 569 

Monte Allegro, The i. 60, 594 

Montetiori r. Montefiori ii. 73; iii. 518 

^loutesquieu v. Snndvs i. 86 

Montgomery o. Dillingham ii. 26 

u. Kirk>ey iii. 449 

u. Lan)|)ton i. 381 

c. The T. P. Lcatliers ii. 216, 


Jlontgomcry County Bank r. Albany 

C'itv Bank i. 2i;r,, 269; i'i. 104 

!■. Marsli i. 281 

Montoya i'. London Ass. Co. ii. 308, 376 

Montreal, The ii. 309, 349 

Montriou v. Jefferies iii. 192 

Monys v. Leake i. 4.t7 

Moody, ex paitf iii. 5'20 

V. Baker iii. 181 

t. Brown i. 528; ii. 259, .)!9 

V. Mahurin ii. 622, 6t.) 

V. Payne i. 203 

(.-. Th'relkeld i. 2r,2 

r. Webster iii. 2G7 

Moon V. Durden ii, 755, 7.11) 

u. Guardians of Whitney Union 

i. 84 ; ii. .5')9 

Mooney v. Lloyd ii. 116 

Moor V. Voazie i. 224 

V. Wilson i. 69, 8.'! 

Moore, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Abernathy i. 327 

f. Adam iii. 181 

V. American Transportation Co. 

ii. 307, 335 
V. Bartliop i. 531 

V. Blake iii. 416 

V. Campbell i. 477 ; ii. 536 



Moore v. Clemeiitsoa 

ii. 614, 796 

V. Coffield 

i. 271,279 

i;. Collins 

iii. 426 

V. Crofton 

iii. 361, 363 

V. Dalton 


V. Edwai-ds 

iii. 391 

V. Evans 

ii. 237 

V. Fitzwater 

i. 439 

V. Foley 

iii. 368 

V. Fox 

iii. 37 

V. Gano 

i. 165 

V. Garwood 

iii. 295 

V. Hart 

ii. 72 

V. Hendrick 

iii. 96 

V. Hill 

ii. 220 

i^. Hitchcock 

iii. 254 

V. Hylton 

iii. 116 

V. Hyman 

iii. 69 

V. Inhabitants of Abbott ii. 233 

V. Jones iii. 470 

V. Kendall ii. 765 

V. Magrath ii. 502, 503 

V. McIGnlay i. 545, 561 

V. Meagher iii. 177 

I'. Moore i. 88 

V. Platte Co. iii. 162 

V. Randolph iii. 417 

V. Boss iii. 35 

V. Sample i. 203 

i;. Small iii. 392 

V. Taylor ii. 366 

V, Tiirbeville ii. 773 

V. Vince iii. 109, 149 

V. Viele i. 382 

V Voughton iii. 104, 151 

V Woolsey ii. 482 
Mooreoni v. Greaves ii. 306 
Mooring v. Mobile SI. D. & M. I. Co. ii. 625 
Moosa V. AUain i. 419 
Moran u. Baudin ii. 337, 346 

V. Miami Corns. ii. 800 

Morancy v. Quarles ii. 715 

Moravia v. Levy i. 164 

Moreure v. Dermott iii. 1 20 

More V. Howland iii. 149 

V. Mayhow i. 75 

Morean v. U. S. Ins. Co. ii. 384, 388 

Moreaa v. SafFaraus i. 1 50 

Mores v. Conham ii. 110; iii. 238 

V. Mead i. 577 

Missouri, The ii. 271 

Moreton v. Hardern i. 185 

Morewood v. Pollock ii. 307; iii. 196 

Morford v. Bliss ii. 796 

Morgan, ex parte iii. 465 

<7. BIddle a. 259, 275 

u.Blitzenberger iii. 35 

V. Bliss ii. 772 

V. Brundett iii. 486 

V. Congdou ii. 138 

V. Fencher i. 574 

V. Groflf ii, 628 

Morgan v. Ins. Co. of N. A. ii. 295 

V. Mather ii. 705; iii. 151 

V. McGhee ii. 596 

V. Milman iii. 355, 395, 405 

V. Pebrer ii. 755 

V. Kainsford iii. 359, 362, 407 

V. Ecintzel i. 292 

V. Richards ii. 755, 759 

V. Schermerhom iii. 109, 126 

V. Stell i. 59 

V. Thames Bank i. 286 

!;. Thomas i. 131 

V. Walton iii. 66, 85 

V. Woodworth i. 284 

u. Yarborough ii. 60, 61, 65 

Morisone v. Arburthnot ii. 73 

Moritz V. Melliorn ii. 61 

Morley v. Attenborough i. 573, 574 
!). Boothby i. 428 ; ii. 7 ; iii. 15, 16 

V. Inglis ii. 740 

V. Polhill i. 129, 130 

Morphett v. Jones iii. 60, 393 

Morrell v. Fisher ii. 550, 552 
V. Frith ii. 493 ; iii. 66, 68, 69 

V. Trenton Ins. Co. ii. 478 

Mon-ill V. Aden i. 298, 316 

V. Wallace i. 581 

Morris, ex parte iii. 465 

in re iii. 458 

V. Abat iii. 226 

V. Cleasby i. 91, 92, 467 

V. Cornell ii. 345, 346 

u. Edgington i. 500 

V. Eves iii. 436 

V. Husson i. 273, 281 

V. Jones iii. 140 

V. Langdale iii. 181 

V. Lee i. 248 

V. Martin i. 354 

V. Miller ii. 77 

V. Moore ii. 794, 796 

V. Morris i. 212 

V. Norfolk i. 344 

V. Phelps iii. 227 

V. Redfield ii. 54 

V. Robinson ii. 278, 319, 336 

V. Sliter ii. 531 

u. Stacey iii. 14 

V. Summerl i. 86 

V. Vanderen ii. 723 

V. Way iii. 421 
Morrison t>. Blodgett i. 205, 209, 210, 211 

V, Buchanans ii. 699 

u. Davis '1 ■"' 

r. Deaderick i. 225, ^^u 

V. Galloway ii. 532 

K. Kurtz i. 213 

V. Moreland ii. 742 

u. Muspratt ii. 471,472 
u. Ten. Ins. Co. ii. 438,441, 450 

Morrisset v. King iii. 143 

Morrow v. Starke ii. 615 



Morrow v. Waltz i. 479 
Morss V. Elmendorf iii. 402, 403 
Morse, ex parte iii- 464 
V. Auburn & S. R. Co. iii. 167 
V. Bellows i. 186; ii. 61.5 
a. Crawford 1. 384 ; iii. 167 
V. Earl i. 343 
V. Faulkner ii. 791 
V. Goddard ii. 797 
V. Gould iii. 5.52 
V. Hovey iii. 433, 507 
V. Lowell iii. 459, 524 
V. Merest iii. 377, 383 
V. Eeed iii. 524 
V. Koyal i. 87 
V. Slue u. 163, 171, 254 
V. Welton i. 310 
V. Wilson iii. 143 
Mortimer v. Capper iii. 473 
V. Orchard iii. 356 
Mortimor v. McCallau i. 524 
V. Mortimer i. 357 
Mortimore v. Wright i. 301, 311, 446 
Mortin v. Burge ii. 694, 696 
Mortlock V. BuUer i. 437, 493 ; iii. 13, 
351, 401, 406 
Morton v. Dean iii. 12, 13 
V. Lamb i. 537 
i;. Tibbett iii. 45 
V. Webb ii. 728 
V. Westcott i. 281 
Morville v. The Great Northern Rail- 
way Co. ii. 244, 248 
Mosby V. Wall ii. 733 
Moseley v. Boush i. 225 
V. Lord ii. 335 
V. Virgin iii. 354, 371 
Moses V. Boston & Maine R. R. ii. 179, 240 
u. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 381, 388 
V. Grafter iii. 336 
V. Fogartie i. 348 
V. Macferlan i. 462, 492 
V. Mead i. 588 
V. Norrig ii. 165 
V. Norton iii. 21 
V. Pratt ii. 359 
V. Stevens i. 315 ; ii. 37 
V. Sun Ins. Co. ii. 376, 406, 408 
1 V. Middlcton i. 457 
Adams ii. 632 
Bainbrigge ii. 500 
Charnock iii. 487 
Hall ii. 26 
Livingston i. 54 
Rossie Lead Mining Co. i. 49 
. Smith ii. 385 
. Sweet i. .539 
,'. TownsonJ ii. 139 ; iii. 234 
der V. Bosh i. 255 
Moston V. Burn i. 440 
Moth V. Frome iii. 475 
Motley V. Manuf. Ins. Co ii. 439 

Motley V. Motley i. 88 

Mott V. Comstock i. 361 

V. Mott ii. 753; iii. 164 

Motte V. Dorrell iii. 113 

Motteux V. London Ass. Co. i. 24 ; ii. 365, 

Mottram v. Heyder i. 596, 693 

Mouldsdale v. Birchall i. 445 

Moule, ex parte iii. 462 

Moulton V. Trask ii. 37, 523 

Mounce v. Byars iii. 281 

Mount V. Larkins ii. 412 

Mountaineer, The ii. 318 

Mountford v. Gibson i. 132 

V. Scott i. 75 

V. Willis iii. 1(14 

Mountney v. Collier i. 507 

Mountstephen v. Brooke i. 186; ii. 617; 
iii. 64, 85 
Mouse's Case ii. 2112 

Mouton V. Noble i. 429, 455 

Mowatt r. Howland i. 169 

Mowbray, ex parte iii. 470 

Mowrey v. Walsh iii. 254, 274 

Mowry !). Bishop iii. 131, 151, 152 

V. Todd i. 226, 2i9 

Moxey, The ii. 310 

Moxhay v. Inderwick ■ iii. 403 

Moxley v. Moxley's Adra'r i. 482 

Moxon V. Atkins ii. 365, 403, 542 

Moyscs V. Little iii. 479, 498 

Mozley v. Tinkler i. 450, 478 ; ii. 1 1 

Mudd V. Harper i. 261 

V. Reeves ii. 622 

Muggridge, in re iii. 468 

V. Eveleth ii. 300 

Muhler v. Bohlens i. 92 

Mnilman v. D'Equino i. 266 

Muir y. United Ins. Co. ii. 391 

Muirhead v. Kirkpatrick i. 439, 441 ; ii. 


JIuldon V. Whitlock ii. 269 

Mulgrave, The ii. 322 

Mulherrin !'. Hannum i. 272 

Mullen V. Ensley ii. 127 

V. Gilkinson ii. .38 

MuUick V. Radakissen i. 206 

Mullikin v. Aughinbaugh iii. 455 

Mulloy V. Backer ii. 299 

Mulry V. Mohawk Valley Ins. Co. ii. 437 

Mulvehall v. Milhvard ii. 71 

Mumtbrd, ex parte iii. 508 

V. Bowen i. 504 

V. Comm. Ins. Co ii. 396 

.;. Hallett ii. 357, 362 

V. McPhcrson i. 589 ; ii. 548 

V. Nicholl ii. 266 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. ii. 380 

V. Whitney iii. 34 

Mundy v. Culver iii. 157, 158 

i: Jolitfe iii. 3.56, 395 

Mundorff v. Kilbourn iii. 392, 406, 418 



Munet V. Gibson i. 250 

Hunger v. Tonawauda E. Co. ii. 231 

Munn V. Bukor ii. 253, 507 

V. Commission Co. i. 57 ; iii. 118, 


Munro v. Alaire ii. 691, 695 

V. lie Chemant i. 363, 364 

V. Saunclurs ii. 596 

Munroe v. Connor i. 180 

V. Cooper i. 242 

V. Holmes ii. 269 

V. Leach ii. 233 

V. Perkins ii. 544 

V. Pritchett ii. 775, 785 

Munsey v. Goodwin ii. 52 

Murch V. Concord R. R. Corp. ii. 231 

Murden v. S. Car. Ins. Co. ii. 411 

Mm-dock v. Harris i. 512 

V. Chenango Co. Ins. Co. 

ii. 352, 422, 430, 434 
Murphy, in re iii. 493 

u. Clark iii. 374 

V. O'Shea i. 87 

V. Simpson ii, 760 

Murray v. Alsop ii. 405 

V. Baker iii. 99 

V. Barlee i. 348 

V. Blatchford i. 22, 26 

V. Bogert 1.35, 154, 163, 164 

V. Burtis iii. 471 

V. Carret i. 462 

V. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 358, 370 

V. De Rottenhara iii. 285 

V. East India Co. i. 42 

V. Gouvencur iii. 221 

V. Harding iii. 140 

V. Hatch ii. 382, 384 

V. House i. 113 

V. Judah i. 257 

V. Lylburn i. 227 

V. Mann ii. 775 

V. Mechanics Bank iii. 69 

V. Mumford i. 198, 201, 202 

V. Murray i. 212 

V. Riggs iii. 426, 483 

V. United Ins. Co. ii. 405 

Murrill v. Neill i. 204, 211 

Murry v. Smith i. 539 ; ii. 535, 661 

Muschamp v. L. & P. Junct. Rail- 
way Co. ii. 213, 216, 218 
Muse V. Donelson iii. 83 
V. Lottermann ii. 796 
Musgrove v. Gibbs iii. 144 
Musier v. Trumpbour i. 164 
Mussen «. Price iii. 211 
Musser v. F. & A. Street Ry. Co. ii. 253 
Mussey v. Atlas Ins. Co. ii. 372 
V. Beecher i. 46 
V. Rayner ii. 13 
Musson V. Pales ii. 262 
Mutford V. Walcot i. 287 
Mutual Ass. Co. v. Mahon ii. 433 

Mutual Ass. Soc. v. Stanard iii. 513 

Fire Ins. Co. v. Noyes i. 298 

Ins. Co. LI. Cargo ' ii. 325, 331 

u. Cohen ii. 385 

V. Hone i. 33 ; ii. 457 

V. Mahon ii. 433 

V. Munro ii. 370, 382, 


o. Ruse ii. 4SS 

u. Swift ii. 3.)8 

Myere, ar parte iii. 505, 506 

V. Edge ii. 4, ao 

V. Girard Ins. Co. ii. 406, 407, 408 

u. Harriet, The ii. 329 

V. Keystone Ins. Co. ii. 351 

V. Perry ii. 313 

V. Sanders i. 322 

V. United Guarantee, &e. 

Company i. 230 

K.Watson iii. 352, 415, 554 

V. Willis ii. 575, 280 

Myler v. Pitzpatrick i. 89 ; ii. 204 

Mynn v. Joliife ii. 615 


Nailor v. Bowie 

i. 271, 275 

Naish, in re 

iii. 140 

Nagle V. Baylor 

iii. 417 

V. Mallison 

iii. 173 

Naglee v. Ingersoll 

ii. 738 

r. Lymau 

i. 267 

Nance's Lessee v. Thompson ii. 701 

Napier v. McLeod ^ i. 26 

V. Schneider i. 288 

Napoleon, The, v. Etter ii. 271 

Narragansett, The iii. 183 

Nash, ex parte iii. 464 

V. Drew i. 59 

u.Dunscombe iii. 344 

V, Harrington i. €79 

V. Hodgson ii. 630 ; iii. 76, 79 

u. Nash iii, 481 

V. Russell i. 435 

V. Tupper ii. 588, 590 ; iii. 436 

Nashville & C. R. R. Co. u. Messino 

ii. 219,229 

Nason u. Dinsraore ii. 759, 763 

Nathan v. Giles iii. 487 

Nathaniel Hooper, The ii. 293, 318, 331 

National Bank v. Norton i. 78, 169 

E.Kchange Co. v. Drew i. 74 

Fire Ins. Co. u. Loomis i. 497 ; 

iii. 10 

Naugatuck R. R. Co. v. Waterbury 

Co. ii. 218 

Navone v. Haddon ii. 384, 396 

Navnlshaw v. Brownrigg i. 59, 93 

Naylor v. Dennie i. 596, 608, 609 

V. Mangles iii. 239 

V. Moody ii. 24. 26 



Naylor v. Taylor ii. 399 

Nazareth c. Lowe iii. 280 

Neal .. Farmer i. 399 

V. Snunderson ii. 159 

V. Sheffield ii. 688 

Neale v. Clantice i. 518 

V. Ledp^er ii. 707 

a. Mackenzie iii. 408, 409 

B. Turton i. 146, 165 

V. Wvllie i. 505 

Ncate V. Ball i. 539 

Neave v. JMoos ii. 787 

Nebraska City v. Campbell iii. 135 

Ned V. Beal i. 420 

Nedritfe u. Hogan ii. 737 

Negus, t.r parte iii. 186 

Neel V. Deens i. 462 

Neelson v. Sanborne ii. 6 

Negro C.ito c. Howard i. 413 

George v. Corse i. 417 

Harriet !?. Ridgely i. 419 

Jack (', Hopewell i. 420 

Neidlet !•. Wales i. 505 

Neil V. Cheves ii. 555 

V. Cottingham iii. 452 

Neill L\ Morley iii. 461 

Neilson >;. Harford ii. 492 

V. Alorgan iii. 172 

Ncirinokx, ex parte iii. 460 

Nellis V. Clark i. 492 ; ii. 782 

Nelson v. Belmont ii. 327, 329, 330, 331 

V. Boynton ii. 10; iii. 24, 28 

V. Bridges iii. 368 

i;. Carland iii. 433 

V. Carringtou iii. 228 

V. Cartwell iii. 103 

V. Cowing i. 60 

V. Telder iii. 103 

V. Hopkins ii. 550 

V. Iverson ii. 94 

e/. Leland ii. 311 

V. Lloyd i. 175 

V. Macintosh ii. 106 

V. Matthews iii. 228 

V. Powell i. 63 

V. Salvador ii. 400 

V. Scrle i. 442, 443 

t. Stephenson ii. 289 

V. Suddarth i. 392, 394 

V. Suffolk Ins. Co. ii. 374, 377 

The ii. 281 

c. Woodruff ii. 289 

Nelthorpe v. Holgate iii, 354, 402 

Neponsct Bank w. Leland iii. 265 

Neptune Ins. Co. o. Robinson ii. 403 

The ii. 260, 317, 339, 340, 349 

Neptunus, The ii. 399 

Nereide, The ii. 399 

Nerot y. Burnard i. 195 

u. Wallace i. 431, 459, 462 

Nesbit V. Bun-y i. 528 

Nesbitt V. Digby iii. 449 

Nesbitt V. Lushington ii. 378, 380 

V. Meyer iii. 367 

Nesmith i\ Dyeing i. 98 

Nestor, The ii. 260, 263 

Netherland S. Co. v. Styles ii. 313 

Nettles V. Railroad Co. ii. 183 

Nettleton v. Billings ii, 513 

V. Sikes iii. 32 

Neve V. Hollands iii. 79 

Neves v. Scott i. 369 

Neville v. Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 368, 420 

V. Wilkinson ii. 73, 784 

Nevins v. Rockingham Ins. Cci ii. 454 

V. Townsend i. 261 

Nevison v. Whitley iii, 128 

Neiitt V. Clarke ii. 343 

New i'. Swain i. 527 ; iii. 246 

Newall, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Hussey ii. 624 

Newark, The ii. 172 

NcNV Bedford Turnpike v. Adams i. 453 

Newlicggin v. Pillans i. 366 

New Brunswick S. & T. Co. v. Tiers ii. 161 

Newbury c. Armstrong i. 450; iii. 16 

V. Brunswick ii. 598 

Newby ;■. Paynter , iii. w> 

V. Vc^tal i. ,il7 

Newcastle Ins. Co. v. Macmorran ii. 397, 

Newcorab v. Brackett i. 538 

u. Clark i. 56 

0. Raymer iii, 33 

Newdigail v. Lee iii, 513 

New Draper, The ii, 267 

Newel (', Keith ii, 46 

Newell V. Hamer ii, 26 

V. Hill i. 470 

u. Newton ii, 725 

V. Turner ii, 780 

N. E. Bank r. Lewis ii. 733 

Marine Ins. Co. v. De Wolf i. 52 ; 
ii. 301 
V. Sarah Ann, 
The ii. 276 
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Butler ii. 419, 
Newhall, ex parte iii. 468, 472, 474 

V. Buckingham i. 209 

V. Vargas i. 596, 598, 599, 601, 
V. "Wright ii, 503 

Newham v. May iii, 403 

New Hamps. Ins. Co. v. Rand ii. 419, 454 
Savings Bank v. Col- 
cord i, 441 ; ii, 25, 26 
New Haven County Bank c, iVIitchell 

ii. 13, 19 
Fire Ins. Co. c. Noyes i. 248 
S. B. Co. u.Vanderhilt ii. 310 
New Hope &c. Co. v. The Phoenix 

Bank i. 78 

V. Perry i, 272 



New Jersey Bal. Co. v. Cook i. 65 

R. R. Co. V. Keinan ii. 228 
Steam Nav. Co. v. Mer- 
chants Bank ii. 23.'i, 240, 248, 307 
New Jersey v. Wilsou iii. 543, 548 
The ii. 314 
Newlln V. Freeman i. 369 
y. Ins. Co. ii. 368 
Newman v. Bagley i. 205 
V. Bean i. 160, 209 
V. Cazalot ii. 416 
V. Cliapman iii. 283 
; V. Edwards ii. 801 
r. Jackson iii. 421 
V. Labeafcme ii. 700 
r. Meek ii 632 
V. Newman i. 458 
V. Rogers iii. 385 
V. Walters ii. 318 
V. Wasliington i. 116 ; ii. 56 
Newmarch v. Clay ii. 630 
Newnham v. Stevenson iii. 485 
New Orleans R. R. Co. i/. Mills i. 271 
New Phcenix, The ii. 42 
Newport v. Cook i. 308 
Newry & Enniskilen R. R. v. Coombe 

i. 333, 334, 335 
Newsom v. Thornton i. 289, 596, 607 ; 

ii. 118 

Newsome !'. Coles i. 189 

Newton v. Bronson i. 53 

17. Chantler iii. 484, 486 

u. Foster ii. 741 

V. Galbraith ii. 646, 654 

V. Harland i. 515 

V. Liddiard ii. 795 

V. Lucas ii. 549, 552 

V. Swazey iii. 392 

V. Trigg iii. 250, 460 

New York Bowcrv Ins. Co. v. N. Y. 

Ins." Co. ii. 373, 435, 436, 
461, 778 
Central Ins. Co. v. Na- 
tional Prot. Ins. Co. i. 75 
Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonnet i. 186 
Fireman Ins. Co. d. Ely iii. 1 1 7, 
130, 132 
o. Milne 

iii. 557 

Ins. Co. u. Delavan ii. 455 

V. Langdon ii. 423, 425 

V. Lawrence ii. 413 

V. Protection Ins. 

Co. ii. 373, 460 

t. Roberts ii. 359, 369 

V. Robinson ii. 390 

V. Thomas ii. 352 

Life Ins. Co. u. Flack ii. 467, 

481, 482 

M. I W. t!. Smith i. 216 

& Bait. Trans. Co. !'. Phil. 

&c. Steam Nav. Co. ii. 312 

New York & E. R. v. Skinner ii. 231 

& H. R. Co. I'. Story iii. 185 
& N. Haven R. R. Co. v. 

Pixley i. 448 

& Vu. Steamship Co. a. 

Calderwood ii. 311 

& Western Tel, Co. w. 

Dryberg ii. 251 

Thot). Rea ii. 310, 311 

Neywood v. Watson i. 258 

Niagara Bank v. Rosevelt ii. 632 

The w. Cordes ii. 332 

Nias V. Adamson iii. 467 

Niblo V. North American Ins. Co. ii. 437, 

441, 453 

Nichol V. Bate i. 258, 278 

u. Godts i. 586 

V. JMartyn ii. 48 

Nicholas !). Chamberlain i. 512 

V. Chapman ii. 700 

f. Clont iii. 261 

Nichole v. Allen i. 302, 446 

Nicholls V. Stretton ii. 750 

V. Wilson iii. 93 

Nichols V. Bellows iii. 497 

i'. Chalic ii. 708 

V. Coolahan ii. 33, 42 

V. Cosset iii. 114 

V. Diamond i. 253 

V. Fayette Ins. Co. ii. 433, 438, 


a. Fearson iii. 116, 118, 144 

V. Freeman iii. 231 

V. Haywood ' i. 27 

V. Johnson ii. 354, 717, 719 ; iii. 

14, 17 

V. Lee iii. 1 1 5 

V. Luce ii. 534 

u. McDowell ii. 24 

V. Nichols ■ ii. 85 

r. Norris i. 286 

V. Patten ii. 782 

o. Pool i. 272 

V. Raynbred i. 448, 449 

V. Rensselaer Mut. Ins. Co. ii. 694 

V. Rogers ii. 592 

V. Whiting • ii, 654 

Nicholson v. Chapman ii. 96 

II. Halsey iii, 329 

V. Leavitt i. 183 ; iii. 449 

V. May i. 444 

V. Paget ii. 509 

V Rcvill i. 187, 286 

V. Svkes ii. 696 

V. Willan ii. 234, 241 

Nickells v. Atherstone i. 509 ; ii. 798 

Nickerson v. Easton i. 315 

V. Mason ii. 348 

V. Tyson ii. 330 

Nickolson v. Knowles ii. 204 

Nickson v. Brohan i. 42, 57 

Nicloson V. Wordsworth iii. 379 



Nicol V. Carr iii- 379 

NicoU V. Amer. Ins. Co. ii. 432 

V. Mumford ii- ".^"0 

Niell I'. Morley i. 385, 386 

Hightiugale v. Withington i. 308,321, 330 

Niglitingall II. Smith ii. 552 

Niles V. Sprague ii. "7 

Nimraick v. Holmes ii. 324, 328, 330 

Nimrod, The ii. 344 

Kind V. Marshall ii. 502 

Nioloa V. Douglass iii. 426 

Niphon, The ii. 340 

Nisbet V. Patton i. 185 

Niven v. Belknap ii. 795, ^QT 

Niver v. Rossman iii. 162 

Ni.x V. Bradley i. 368 

V. Olive i. 603 

Nixon, ex parte iii. 491 

t. Bullock ii. 653 

V. Careo ii. 796 

V. English i. 256 

Noble V, Howard ii. 735 

V. Kennoway ii. 541, 542 

V. Kersey iii. 469 

c. Peebles ii. 691 

V. Smith i. 235, 432 

NoHes r. Bates ii. 750 

Nobley i: Clark i. 270 

Koe V. Hodges ii. 622 

Noke's Case i. 500; ii. 516 

Noke v. Awder i. 233 

Nokos V. Kilmorey iii. 386 

Noland v. Clark ii. 110 

Nolte, ex parte i. 1 86 

Noonan v. Lee ii. 563 

Norcross v. Ins. Co. ii. 438 

Norman v. Cole ii. 755 

u. Molett iii. 4 

V. Morrell ii. 556 

!>. Phillips iii. 45, 49 

Norris v. Hall i. 221 

V. Harrison ii. 356 

u. Lan^ley i. 265 

V. Le Neve i. 86 

V. Mumford iii. 455 

V. Spencer iii. 21 

V. Trustees of Abingdon Academy 

iii. 532 

V. Vernon i. 178 

V. Wait i. 318 

V. Wilkinson iii. 280 

North V. Forrest iii. 51 

V. Wakofleld i. 29 

N. A. Coal Co. V. Dyett i. 348 

Fire Ins. Co. v Graham iii. 523 

North British Ins. Co. v. Lloyd ii. 8 

North Eivcr B.ank v. Aymar i. 46, 77 

Meadow Co. v. Shrewsbury 

Church ii. 724 

Western Ey. u. McMichaol i. 333, 

334, 336 

V. Whinray ii. 17 

Northampton Bank v. Pepoon i. 49 

Gas Light Co. «. Parnell 

ii. 527, 529 
Northern i'. Williams ii. 296 

Northern R. R. v. Concord and Clare- 

mont R. R. iii. .540 

Northey v. Field i. 597, 603 

Northfield v. Vcrshire ii. 77 

Northrup v. Foot ii. 759 

u. Graves iii. 398 

V. Northrup ii. 533 

Norton, ex parte iii. 490 

V. Acklane iii. 492 

V. Babcock iii. 226, 228 

V. Cook iii. 442 

V. Coons i. 36, 38 

V. Eastman ii. 13 

V. Ellam iii. 92 

V. Fazan i. 354, 355 

V. Mascall iii. 355, 410 

V. Pickering i. 278 

u. Preston iii. 59 

u. Rensselaer Ins. Co. ii. 461 

V. Rose i. 227 

V. Seymour i. 113 

V. Symmes i. 457 

V. Waite i. 258 

V. Webb ii. 657 

V. Woodrufif ii. 134 

V. Young ii. 680 

Norway Plains Co. u. Boston & Me. R. 

R. ii. 172, 189, 190 

Norwich v. Norwich ii. 689, 690 

Norwood If. Stevenson i. 364 

Nostrand v. Atwood iii. 426 

Nostra Scnora del Carmine, The ii. 285 

Notley V. Wul)b iii. 295 

Notman u. Anchor Ass. Co. ii. 474 

Nourse v. Barns iii. 230 

V. Prime iii. 134 

Novelli V. Rossi ii. 607 

Nowell u. Pratt i. 93 

u. Roake iii. 221 

Nowlan, ex parte iii. 519 

V. Ahlett ii. 32, 34 

Noyes v. Blakeman i. 3C9 

V. Butler ii. 609 

V. Cushman i. 147 

!). N. H., N. L., &S.II.R.C0. 

i. 186 

</. R. &. B. R. R. Co. ii. 218 

V. Ward iii. 165 

Noyes' Ex'rs v. Humphreys i. 455 ; iii. 24 

Xunes V. Jloiligliaui ii. 736 

Nunn V. Wilsmore i. 360; ill. 426 

Nuova Loanesf, The ii. 284, 333 

Nurse v. Craig i, 361 

V. Seymour iii. 412 

Nuthrown r. Thornton i. 492; iii. 369,373 

Nutt V. Bourdieu ii. 373 

Nutter ('. Stovct i. 255 

Nutting V. Conn. River R. R. Co. ii. 217 




Ooades v. Woodward 

i. 72 

Oakes V. Munroe 

ii. 797 

Oakey v. Bennett 

iii. 456 

Oakley v. AspinwaU 

i. 156 

V. Mortou 


524, 672 

Oaks V. WcUer 

ii. 15 

Oates V. Bromell 

ii. 700 

V. Caffin 

i. 408 

V. Hudson 


394, 395 

Oatman v. Walker 

iii. 232 

Obermyer v. Nichols 

ii. 5.32 

Obrhm v. Ram 

i. 341 

O'Brien v. Currie 

i. 314 

; iii. 462 

V, Gilchrist 


290, 555 

V. Greirson 

iii. 51 1 

V. Smith 

i. 261 

Ocean Ins. Co. v. Carrington ii. 351, 420 

V. Fields ii. 369 

V. Kider ii. 56 

Ockenden, ex parte iii. 272 

O'Conner v. Forster iii. 193, 194 

Odell V. Wake iii. 492 

Odin V. Greenleaf i. 34 

Odiorne v. Maxey i. 43, 93 

V. Sargent ii. 503 

Odlin V. Ins. Co. of Penn. ii. 305, 379 

O'Donnell v. Sweeney ii. 759 

Oehlricks v. Ford ii. 541 

O' Ferrall, ex parte iii. 474 

Offleyj). Clay ii. 615 

and .Johnson's Case i. 32 

Offly V. Ward i. 468 

Offut !•. Stont i. 283 

Ogden V. Astor i. 160; iii. 89, 90 

V. Cowley- i. 270, 274 

V. General Ins. Co. ii. 289 

V. Jackson iii. 425 

V. New York Insur. Co. ii. 359, 


V. Ogden iii. 29, 30 

V. Raymond i. 68 

V. Saunders iii. 430, 437, 439, 

440, 442, 455, 493 

V. Stone iii. 425 

Ogilvie V. Foljambe i. 494 ; iii. 7 

V. Hull i. 508 

Oglander t). Boston iii. 481 

Ogle V. Atkinson ii. 142 

V. Wrangham ii. 268 

Ohl V. Eagle Ins. Co. ii. 266 

O'Keefe v. Kellogg i. 526 

OkoU V. Smith ii. 677 

O'Keson v. Barclay i. 438 

Olcott V. Tioga Railroad Co. iii. 97 

Oldaker v. Lavender i. 203 

Oldershaw v. King ii. 6 

Oldfield V. Wilmers ii. 689, 694 

Oldham v. Litchford iii. 397 

I'. Turner iii. 144 

Jldknow, exjoa?<c i. 211 

Oliphant v. Mathews i. 182 

Oliver, ex parte iii. 519 

V. Bank of Tenn. . i. 270 

V. Com. Ins. Co. ii. 350, 3.53 

V. Court i. 87 

V. Gray iii. 85 

V. Greene ii. 363, 405 

V. Munday i. 270 

V. Oliver i 357 

I/. Woodroffe i. 295, 313 

Olivera v. Union Ins. Co. ii. 379, 3'-"0 

Oliverson v. Ward ii. 366 

Olivier V. Townes iii. 455 

Ollivant v. Bayley i. 587, 593 

OUive V. Booker i. 560 ; ii. 288 

Olmstead v. Bealo ii. 33, 36, 524, 526, 659 

V. Miller iii. 177 

V. MuNall ii. 271 

Olmsted v. Hotailing i, 73 

Olyphant v. Baker i. 528 

Oneida Manuf Co. v. La^vrence i. 581, 585 

O'Neil V. Buffalo Ins. Co. ii. 425, 429, 


Ongley v. Chambers i. 499 

Onion V. Robinson ii. 695 

Onondaga County Bank v. Bates i. 286 

V. De Buy i. 182 

Onslow V. iii. 373 

V. Con-ie iii. 467, 492 

u. Fames i. 591 

«. Orchiird i. 28 

Ontario Bank y. Lightbody i. 265 

V. Mumford i. 224, 225 ; 

iii. 468 

V. Root iii. 390 

V. Schermerhorn iii. 136 

V. Worthington i. 259 

Oom V. Bruce ii. 359 

Oppenheim v. Russell i. 604; iii. 241, 252 

Oppenheimer r. Edney ii. 256 

Orange Co. Bank v. Brown ii. 243, 254 

Orcutt V. Nelson i. 553; ii. 583 

Ord V. Fenwick i. 131 

V. Noel iii. 406 

Ordinary v. Wherry i. 323 

Orcar v. McDonald i. 268, 270 

Orelia, The ii. 283, 284 

Oregon, The, v. Rocca ii. 313 

Orleans, The, v. Phcebus ii. 267 

Oriental, The ii. 284 

Oriole, The ii. 265 

O'Reilly v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. ii. 412 

Orford v. Cole iii. 298 

Orient Ins. Co. v. Wright iii. 3S0 

Ormerod v. Tate ii. 701 ; iii. 270 

Ormond v. Anderson iii. 354, 409 

!•. Holland ii. 43 

V. Hutchinson i. 88 

Ormrod !,■. Huth i. .585; ii. 775 

Orms V. Ashley i. 430 

Ormston v. i. 274 

Orne v. Townsend ii. 344 



O'Roui-ke y. Percival iii. 416 

OiT !;. Churcliill iii- 159 

c. Hodgson i. 397 

On- V. Union Bank of Scotland i. 264 
?;. Williams ii- 651 

Orrcll V. Hi\mpclen Ins. Co. ii. 354, 356, 

Oirick i). Colston i. '^iJ 

Onock V. Com. Ins. Co. ii. 327, 385, 386, 

Ortroad v. Round iii. 413 

Ortucan v. Dickson i. 429 

Oi'vis V. Kimball i. 324 

Oiv V. Winter iii. 442 

Us'acar v. La. St. Ins. Co. ii. 367 

Osboi-L V. Adams iii. 442, 456 

V. Etheridge ii. 740 

V. Governor's of Gay's Hospital 

ii. 48 
V. Hawley i. 248 

V. United States Bank i. 113, 114 

Ovcrholt II. Ellswell i. 364 

Overseers of St. Martin v. Warren 

iii. 509 
Overton v. Freeman 
Owen V. Bartholomew 
V. Bowen 

ii. 558 

i. 174 

i. 495 

i. 30 

i. 20, 22, 35 

iii. 544 

i. 474 

ii. 337 

i. 437, 493 

ii. 513 

i. 580, 582 

ii. 798 

iii. 359 

ii. 285 

i. 387 

ii. 313 

iii. 151, 152 

ii. 726 

97, 798 

V. Wise 

V. Bieunan 

V. Bremar 

V. Crosburn 

V. Harper 

V. Humphrey 

71. Rogers 
Osceola, The 
Osgood V. Franklin 

V. Hutehins 

V. Lewis 

u. Nichols 

V. Strode 
Osmanli, The 
Osmond V. Fitzroy 
Osprey, The 
Os-ulston V. Yarmouth 
0^t'A\ V. Lepage 
Osterhout v. Shoemaker 
Ostrander v. Brown li. 183, 186, 193, 194, 

Oswald V. Gray ii. 706 

u. Mayor, &c. of Berwick-upon- 
Tweed ii. 17 
Oswego Falls Bridge v. Fish iii. 536 

Otis I'. Gazlin i. 434 

u. Hussey i. 271, 272 

V. Lindscy iii. 151 

V. Uaymond ii. 776 

0. Sill i. 570, 571 

V. Thom ii. 271 

Ot-igo Co. Bank v. Warren i. 271 

Otts V. Alderson i. 578, 581 

Ougier I'. .Jennings ii. 356, 411, 538, 546 
Oulds V. Harrison i. 256 

Outcall u. Darling iii. 245 

Outcalt V. Van Winkle ii. 481 

Oulram v. Morewood ii. 729, 731 

Outwater v. Dodge i. 528; iii. 45 

V. Nelson ii. 536 

Overliolt's Appea' i. 149 

V. Burnett 
V. Foulkes 
V. Gooch 
V. Homau 
V. Johnson 
V. Owen 
V. Thomas 

V. Van Uster 
v. White 
u. Wolley 
Owens V. Collins 

V. Dickenson 
Owings' Case 
Owings V. Baldwin 
V. Hull 
u. Low 
i). Speed 
Owston V. Ogle 
Oxendale v. Wetherell 
Oxford v. Peter 
O-xford Bank v. Haynes 

u. Lewis 
Oyster v. Longnecker 
Ozeas V. Johnston 
Ozley V. Ikelheimer 

i. 104 

ii, 788 

i. 220 

ii. 248 

iii. 465 

i. 65 

i. 286 

ii. 29.J 

ii. 85 

ii. 549; iii. 17, 287, 

293, 349 

i. 268 

i. 304 

iii. 62 

i. 149 

i. 348 

i. 384 ; iii. 361 

iii. 380, 393 

i. 51 

i. 226 

iii. 527 

i. 25 ; ii. 266, 26S 

ii. 523, 652, 658 

i. 102 

ii. 29 

ii. 27 

iii. 123, 125 

i. 164 

i. 368 

i. 7 


Packard v. Dunsmore 
I'. Getraan 
V. Hill 
(,-. Nye 

V. Richardson 
Packer v. Gillies 

V. Willson 
Packet, The ii. 284, 319, 327^ 
Paddoch v. Com. Ins. Co. 
Paddock ;;. Franklin Ins. Co. ii. 
Padelford v. Boardman 
Padwick v. Turner 
Page, ex parte 
V. Bauer 
f. Bioora 
u. Bussel 

V. Carpenter i. 205 

V. Estes 
V. Foster 
V. Godden 
V. Hill 
V. Parr 
u. Sheffield 
u. Way 
Paget V. Perchard 

i. .530 

ii. 180 

ii. 496 

i. 122 

iii. 15 

iii. 273 

iii. 16 

334, 336 

ii. 378 

363, 364, 

408, 410 

ii. 326 

i. 276 

i. 211 

iii. 470 

iii. 402 

iii. 507 

, 209, 210 

iii. 481 

ii. 691 

iii. 491 

ii. 798 

i. 503 

ii. 338 

iii. 467 

i. 530 



Paige V. Ott 

ii. 524, 659 

u. Stone 

i. 62, 65 

Pain V. Packard 

ii. 2+ 

V. Smith 

iii. 280 

Paine v. Cave 

i. 497 

Painter v. Ncwby 

iii. 402 

Palliser v. Ord 

i. 83 

Palm V. Medina Ins. Co. 

ii. 420 

Palmer v. Andrews 

ii. 66 

V. Baker 

iii. 134 

v. Blackburn 

ii. 544 

I/. City of New York ii. 760 

V. Dodge i. 194 

tj. Edwards i, 2.31 

V. Goodwin iii. 443 

V. Gracie ii, 301 

V. Green ii. 738 

V. Hand iii. 258 

V. LoriUard ii. 293, 297, 305 

U.Marshall ii. 412 

y. Merrill i. 227, 229 ; ii. 482, 620 
V. Naylor ii. 378 

V. Ncave ii. 73 

V. Oakley i. 137 

V. Pratt i. 249 ; ii. 363 

V. Reynolds iii. 166 

V. Richards i. 251 

V. Scott iii. 410 

I. Sparshott i. 24 

I/. Stebbins ii. 750 

V. Stephens i. 65, 69 

V. Warren Ins. Co. ii. 402, 508 

V. ii. 696, 700 

Palmerton v. Huxford ii. 686 

Palo Alto, The i. 484 

Pancoast v. Addison iii. 99 

Paradine v. Jane i. 504, 556 ; ii. 186, 672 

Paradise v. Sun Ins. Co. ii. 3G1, 379 

Parage v. Dale ii. 386 

Paragon, The ii. 327, 538, 541 

Paramour «. Yardly i.l27 ; ii. 514 

Pardee v. Drew ii, 254 

Pardington ;;. S. W. R'y Co. ii. 241 

Parham v. McGravy iii. 99 

V. Randolph i. 495; ii. 775, 786 

Paris V. Stroud i. 297 

Parish v. Crawford ii. 183 

V. Sevon iii. 451 

V. Stone i. 237, 455 

V. Wheeler iii. 202 

Park V. Bates iii. 226 

V. Hamond i. 86 

V. Thomas i. 261 

Parke v. Eliason i. 531 

Parken v. Whitby iii. 417 

Parker i'. Adams ii. 230 

V. Baker i. 329 

V. Barker i. 188, 189; ii. 7 

V. Brancker i. 70, 98 ; iii. 191, 237 

V. Bridgeport Ins. Co. ii. 434, 435 

V. Bristol, &c. R'y Co. ii. 174 

V. Brown iii. 224 

Parker v. Carter 

i. 4.34 

V. Colcord 

ii. 728 

V. Cousins 

i. 194 

V. Crole 

iii. 509 

V. Donaldson 

ii. 743 

I'. Eagle Ins. Co. 

ii. 455 

V. E<;gleston 

ii. 693 

c: Ellis 

i. 35 

V. Flagg 

ii. 161, 169 

V. Elint 

ii. 145 

V. Gordon 

i. 266 

t'. Gossage 

ii. 501 

V. Great Western Ry. Co. ii. 173, 
V. Greele i. 267 

u. Gregg i. 22 

V. Jackson i. 202 

V. Jones ii. 375, 376 

V. Kelly i. 227 

V. Kendall ii. 742 

0. Lawrence i. 24 

V. Manning iii. 469 

u. Nichols ii. 504 

V. Norton iii. 509 

V. Parker iii. 4, 388 

V. Parmole ii. 533, 657 

V. Patrick iii. 274 

(J. Pistor i. 207 

V. Potts ii. 406, 408 

V. Pringle i. 592 

V. Ramshottom i. 169; iii. 107, 
110, 116 
u. Redfield iii. 544 

V. Rochester ii. 747 

V. Rolls i. 114 

V. Simonds iii. 203 

V. Smith i. 72 

V. Stainland iii. 33 

V. Wallis iii. 41 

V. Way i. 337 

V. Webb iii. 467 

V. Wells iii. 460 

u. i. 401 

Parkhurst v. DIckcrson i. 268 

V. Foster ii. 145 

V. Kinsman i. 197 

V. Smith ii. 494 

V. Sumner ii. 732 

u. Van Cortlandt ii. 797 ; iii. 

13, 17,387, 296 

Parkin D. Carruthers i. 71, 170 

V. Thorold iii. 357, 384, 385, 386 

Parkinson v. Lee i. 577, 585 

V. Scoville iii, 440 

Parkist v. Alexander i. 81, 86 

V. Alta California Tel. Co. ii. 252 

Parks V. Boston iii. 195, 197 

V. General Interest Ass. Co. ii. 442 

V. Hall i. 595 ; iii. 256, 257, 274 

V. Ingram i. 250, 257 

Parmelee v. Fisher ii. 255 

Parmeter v. Cousins ii. 365 



Pnrraeter v. Todhunter 

Parmiter v. Coupland 

Piu-neU V. Price 

Parr, ex parte 
V. Eliason 

Parrill v. McKinley 

Parrish v. Kooas 

Piirris V. Roberts 

Parry, ex parte 
V. Ashley 
V. House 

Parslowe v. Dearloye 

Pai'son V. Sexton 

Parsons p. Alilrich 
V. Armor 
V. Briddook 
V. Camp 
i^. Crosby 

ii. 390 

ii. 493 

ii. 26 

iii. 512 

iii. 116, 118 

iii. 383 

iii. 355, 387 

i. 538 

ii, 270 

ii. 356 

i. 507 

iii. 505 

i. 593 

ii. 692 

i. 48 

ii. 5 

i. 511 

ii. 795 

u. HarJyii. 161,169, 185,201,298 

V. Hill i. 329 

V. Mass. Ins. Co. ii. 366 

V. Monteatii ii. 161, 240, 248 

V. Parsons ii. 550 ; iii. 481 

a. Woodward i. 227 

Parsonage Fund v. Osgood iii. 77 

Parton v. Hervey ii. 80, 81, 82, 83 

Partlow V. Cooke ii. 47 

Patricia V. Coram. Ins. Co. ii. 391 

Partridge v. Colby i. 243 

u. Dartra. Coll. iii. 255 

u. Davis ii. 4 

V. Dorsey's lessee iii. 358 

V. Hannura iii. 469 

Paschal v. Terry ' ii. 705 

Paschall v. Passmore ii. 511 

Pastorious v. Fisher iii. 218 

Patapsco Ins. Co. «. Coulter ii. 362, 370, 

378, 449 

V. Smith ii. 351 

V. Southgate ii. 276, 

385, 390 

Patchell y. Holgate i. 337 

Patchin v. Swift i. 429 

Pate V. Henry ii. 174 

Paterson v. Gandasequi i. 63, 95 

a. Hardacre i. 242 

i.: Tash i. 59, 93 

Pateshall v. Tranter i. 591 

Patience v. Townley i. 272 

Patman u. Vaughan iii. 460 

Paton V. Brcbner iii. 401 

V. Duncan i. 582 

I.. Rogers iii. 381, 401, 402 

Patrick, &c parte iii. 134 

V. Greenway iii. 218 

V. Ludlow ii. 36.T 

u. Marshall iii. 230 

Patron v. Silva ii. 305 

Pattee v. Greeley ii. 759, 762 

Patten v Browne iii. 460 

V Ellingwood i. 434 

V. Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 434 

Patten v. Rea 

I. 107 

V. Thompson 

i. 98 

Patterson v. Atlicrton 

i. 227 

V. Black 

ii. 376, 485 

V. Brown 

iii. 89, 90 

V. Chalmers 

ii. 266 

V. Gage 

ii. 40 

V. Grimes 


V. Lytic 

ii. 794 

u. Patterson 

ii. 55 

c. Stewart 

iii. 229 

V. Todd 

i. 256 

Pattison v. Blanchard 

i. 157 

V. Hall 

ii. 632 

Patton V. M'Clure 

iii. 392 

u. Randolph, The 

i. 78 

u. Smitli 

i. 530 

V. State Bank 

i 292 

Paul V. Dowling 

iii. 460 

V. Frazior 

ii. 70 

o. Hard wick 

i. 591 

V. Joel 

i. 283 

V. Jones 

iii. 507 

V. Slason 

iii. 219 

V. Young 

iii. 414 

Pauli V. Sinies 

i. 546 

Pawling V. Bird 

ii. 605 

V. Pawling 

iii. 152, 153 

f. Wilson 

ii. 601 

Pawson I'. Barnevelt 

ii. 352 

V. Watson ii. 397, 402, 403, 404, 


Paxton V. Newton iii. 372 

Payler v, Hcimersham ii. 502, 714 

Payne v. Allen ii. 345 

V. Baldwin iii. 533 

I'. Banner iii. 383 

V. Bettisworth ii. 532 

V. Cave i. 479 

('. Commercial Bank ii. 26 

V. Cutler i. 257 

V. Graves iii. 402 

V. Haine i. 504 

V. Hutchinson ii. 365 

V. Matthews i. 212 

V. New South Wales Co. i. 449 

u. Rodden i. 575 

V. Rogers ii. 617 

V. Shadbolt i. 527 ; iii. 258 

V. Trezevant iii. 117 

Paynter v. Walker ii. 738 

V. Williams i. 471 

Payson v. Wliitcomb i. 272 

Peabody v. Proceeds of 28 Bags of 

Cotton ii. 317 

Peace, The ' ii. 320 

Peachcy v. Rowland i. 105 

Peacock v. Dickcrson ii. 645 

V. Evans iii. 361 

V. Jeftijry ii. 735 

V. Monk i. 430 

«. N. Y:. Ins. Co. ii. 466 



Peacock «. Peacock i. 157, 195, 201 ; 

ii. 46 

V. Pembroke i. 343 

V. Penson iii. 406 

V. Rhodes i. 242 

Peak V. Bull ii. 728 

Peake, ex parte iii. 473 

Pearce, ex parte iii. 515 

in re iii. 523 

V. Atwood ii. 760 

V. Blackwi.'U i. 579 

V. Blagrave iii. 22 

V. Cliamberlain i. 200 

V. Hitchcock i. 23 

V. Patton iii. 557 

V. Piper i. 203 

V. Wilkins i. 182 

Pearl u. Walls ii. 713 

Pearl St. Cong. See. u. Imlay ii. 5 

Pearsall y. -Dwighfc ii. 570, 588, 591 ; 

iii. 436 

Pearse v. Green i. 88 

Pearson v. Archbold ii. 694, 696 

V. Commercial Ass. Co. ii. 428 

V. Davis iii. 226 

V. Duckham i. 34 

V. Graham i. 72 ; iii. 479, 502 

V. Henry i. 129 

V. Humes i. 4.'57 

V. Keedy i. 204 

V. M'Gowran iii. 124 

V. Parker i. 21, 35 

V. Pearson i. 432 

V. Roclihill iii. 426 

,/. Skelton i. 35, 37, 164 

Pease, ex parte iii. 245 

V. Dwight i. 242 

V. Hirst i. 21 ; ii. 21 ; iii. 80 

V. Mead i. 130 

V. Turner i. 263 

Peasle v. Breed i. 31, 36 

Peate v. Dicken i. 445 ; ii. 758 ; iii. 16, 

297, 299 

Peay i>. Pickett i_. 248 

) Peck V. Barney ii. 1 5 

V. Briggs il. 756 

V Burr ii. 747 

V. Davis ii. 684 

V. Fisher i. 151 

V. Halsey ii. 558 

V. Hozier ii. 588, 590 

V. Hubbard ii. 670 

V. Jenness iii. 514 

V. Mayo ii. 584 

V. Neil ii. 229 

V. Wakely ii. 692 

Pecker w. Holt ii. 795 

Peckham v. Faria • iii. 20 

V. N. Parish in Haverhill i. 1 1 , 


Pedder v. "Watt ii. 625 

Peebles v. Stephens i. 428 

Peck V. N. S. Ry. Co. ii. 2.50 

Peel V. Tiiomas i. 145 ; ii. 287 

Peele, ex parte i. 184, 189 

V. Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 383, 385, 

386, 390, 391, 392, 394 

V. Northcote i. 92 

Peers v. Lambert iii. 400 

Peorson v. Leraaitre iii. 168 

Peeters v. Opie i. 537 ; ii. 529 

Peit'er v. Landis iii. 392 

Peigne v. SutcUfie i. 316 

Peirce v. Boston ii. 740 

V. Butler ii. 539 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 276, 278, 


V. Rowe iii. 152, 153 

V. Somersworth iii. 540 

V. Tobey iii. 85 

Peisch V. Dickson ii. 557 

Peixotti V. McLaughlin ii. 169 

Peltier v. Collins i. 477, 544, 547 ; iii. 13 

Pellecat v. Angell ii. 754 

Pellew V. Wonford ii. 664 

Pelly V. Wathen iii. 270 

Pemberton v. King i. 513 

I'. Oakes ii. 19 

ti. Vaughan ii. 750 

Pembroke v. Thorpe iii. 371, 387, 394 

Pembroke Iron Co. o. Parsons ii. 302 

Pcfia I). Vance iii. 52 

Pence v. Duvall iii. 226 

Pendar v. Am. Mat. Ins. Co. ii. 372, 458 

Pender v. Fobes i. 589 

Pendergrast v. Foley iii. 94 

Pendleton v. Dvett i. 508 

Pendrell v. Pendrell i. 337 

Penley v. Watts i. 505 ; iii. 214 

Penn v. Bennet i. 382 

V. Lord Baltimore i. 438 ; iii. 378 

Penn's Adm'r v. Watson iii. 89 

Pennell v. Alexander i. 548 

II. Hinman ii. 794, 800 

Penniford v. Hamilton iii. 295 

Penniman v. Hartsliorn iii. 7, 9 

V. Norton iii. 523 

V. Patcbin ii. 690 

V. Rodman iii. 378 

V. Tucker ii. 358 

Pennington v. Gittings i. 235 ; iii. 363 

V. Taniere ii. 797 

Pennock v. Freeman iii. 99 

V. Tilford i, 581 

Pennock's Appeal i. 497 

Penn., Del. & Md. Steam Nav. Co. 

V. Dandridgo i. 51 
Penn. R. R. Co. r. McCloskey ii. 248 
Penny v. N. Y. Ins. Co. ii. 327 

V. Parkham i. 243 

Pennypacker's Appeal i. 123, 136 

Pennypacker v. Umberger ii. 629 

Penoyer v. Hallett ii. 304 

V. Watson ii. 20 



Penrose II. Curren i. 317 

Pensher, The ii. 314 

Peiisonmeau !'. Bleakley _ i- 38 

Penton v. Robart i. 513 

PcQtz V. Keceivers of ^tna Fire Ins. 

Co. ii. 448 
People V. Bartlett ii. 676 

i;. CoiikUn i. 'M' 

V. Gnshcrie iii. 104 

V. Jaiisen ii. ^4 

V. Jiihnsoa i. 23.5 

V. Judges ii. 736 

V. Kendall i. 316 

V. Manhattan Co. iii. .'532 

V. McHatton ii. 26 

V. Moores i. 31j 

u. Morris iii. 529 

V. New York Common Pleas 

ii. 736 

V. Overseers i. 337 

V. Rochester ii. 798 

i,. Shall i. 429 

V. White ii. 26 

People's Ferry Co. !'. Beers ii. 259 

Savings Bank v. Collins ii. "90 

Pepper v. Haiglit ii. 532, 747 

Poquawket Brnlu'e v. Mathes ii. 717 

Percival v. Blake i. 594 

i;. Frampton i. 2.58 

V. Maine Ins. Co ii. 434 

Percy v. Millaudon ii. 106 

c. Percy ii. 583 

Ferine v. Dunn ii. 766 

Perhani v. Raynal iii. 80 

Perkins v. Augusta Ins. Co. ii. 412, 415 

V. Challis i. 256 

V. Cummings i. 456 

V. Dana i. .503 

V. Douglass i. 539 

t. Eastern & B. & M. R. R. 

Cos. ii. 230 

V. Eaton ii. 627, 628 

V. Franklin Bank i. 276 

V. Oilman ii. 27, 713 

V. Hart ii. 57, 518 

V. Hersey ii. 70; iii. 175 

W.Lyman ii. 750; iii. 163 

17. LittlefieUl iii. 22 

V. Now Eng. Ins. Co. ii. 376 

V. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. ii. 223 

u. Thompson i. 88 

1/. Washington Ins Co. ii. 350, 

420; iii. 374 

V. Wright iii. 352 

Parley v. Balch i. 465 , ii. 680, 780 

Perren v. Monmouthshire R. Co. ii. 039 

Perrin u. Noyes i. 290 

0. Protection Ins. Co. ii. 374, 376,449 

Perrine v. Fireman's Ins. Co. iii 26 

Perring v. Hone i. 146; iii. 295, 307 

Perry v. Bouchier iii. 299 

V. Bowes in. 472 

Perry y. Bowers iii. 472 

Co. Ins. Co V. Stuart ii. 424,438,451 

V. Green i. 271, 279 

V. Jackson iii. 94 

V. Jones iii. 475 

Manuf. Co. v. Brown iii. 44.3 

V. Mays i. 250 

u. Osborn ii. 300 

V. Randolph i. 166 

V. Smith iii. 216 

V. Worcester ii. 800 

Persons r. Jones iii. 99 

Perryclcar v. Jacobs i. 343 

Pcrrvcr, ex parte iii. 405 

Persia, The ii. 318 

Person v. Warren i. 384 

V. Protection Ins. Co. ii. 374, 376, 


Perth Amhoy Man. Co. i-. Condit ii. 493 

Peru V. Turner i. 481 

Peter v. Beverly i. 135 ; ii. 624; iii. 422 

!'. Compton . iii. 37 

V. Craig ii. 711 

V. Rich i. 35 

V. Steel ii. 46 

Peters o. Anderson ii. 029 

V. Ballisticr i. 59 ; ii. 336 ; iii. 43 

V. Brown iii. 85 

V. Delaware Ins. Co. ii. 371, 457 

V. Fleming i. 296 

V. Goocli ii. 080 

V. Lord i. 315 ; ii. 49, 52 

V. McKeon iii. 229 

V. Ncwkirk ii. 705, 706 ; in. 508 

V. Phojuix Ins. Co. ii. 3b0, 499 

V. Ryland iii. 173 

o. Van Lear iii. 374 

u. Warren Ins. Co. ii. 327, 377, 

789; iii. 179 

V. Westborough ii. 44 ; iii. 37, 38 

Peterson v. Ayie ii. 706; iii. 206 

Petkiii r. Toinpson ' i. 344 

Peto 0. Blades i. 574 

u. Hague i. 74 

f. Reynolds i. 271 , 

Petrie v. Bury i. 22 

V. Clark i. 259 

Pcttee ('. Tenn. Manuf. Co. ii. 740 

Pettegrew v, Harris ii. 400 

PetteugiU V. Hinks ii. 462 

Pettibone v. Roberts i. 402 

Pcttingill V. McGregor i. 117 

Pettis !'. Kellogg i. 571 

Pettit, ejr ;«!/'(e iii. t71 

Pettitt V. Johnson iii. 421 

Petty «. Anderson i. 351 

PcttVt V. Janeson i. 203 

Peyrou.x c. Howard ii. 261, 203 

Peytoe's Case ii. 654, 681 

Peyton c. Bladwell ii. 73 

Peytona, Tlie ii. 196, 295 

Pezaut t. National Ins. Co. ii. 386, 394 



PImlen's Case 

iii. 556 

Phalen v. Vii-ginia 

iii. 556 

Phebe, The 

ii. 300, 334 

Plic'lan c. Donslass 

ii. 663 

Phelps V. Aukljo 

ii. 412 

i;. Pierson 

iii. 126 

u. Riley 

iii. 217 

u. Town send 

i. 4.50 

(,-. Williamson 

iii. 66 

V. Woi-cester i. 296, 298, 3 1 1 

Phettcplace v. Steere i. 446 

Philadelphia R. R. Co. i-. Havre de 

Grace Steamboat Co. ii. 765 

Philadelphia & Red. R. R. Co. t. 

Derby i. 103; ii. 222 
Philadelphia & AVilm'ington R. R. 

Co. V. Howard ii. 800; iii. 1S5 

Philadelphia v. Maryland iii. 544, 545 

Life Ins. Co. v. Am. Life 

Ins. Co. ii. 484 

Philhrick v. Preble ii. 690 

Philbrook v. New England Mutual 

Fire Ins Co. ii. 499 

I/. Belknap ii. 659 ; iii. 157 

V. Delano iii. 280 

Philips V. Bank of Lewiston i. 230 

f. Bury iii. 529 

V. Hunter ii. 607, 608 ; iii. 452 
V. Knightley ii. 689, 697 

V. Morrison ii. 661 

u. Williams iii. 103 

Phillimore v. Barry iii. 4 

Phillips V. Allan iii. 442 

c^. BarbtT ii. 376 

V. Bateman i. 436 ; ii. 4 

V. Berger iii. 3B4, 377 

V. Berick ii. 620 

t). Bistolli iii. 41,44 

V. Bonsall i. 12 

u. Bridge i. 205 

V, Briggs i. 37 

V. Broadley iii. 9'5 

V. Clagett ii. 617 

V. Cockayne iii. 116 

V. Condon ii. 108 

V. Cook i. 208, 209 

V. Crammond i. 152 

V. The Duke of Bucks iii. 354 
V. Earle ii. 177 

V. Green i. 326 

V. Headlam ii. 406 

i;. Higuins ii. 696 

V. Inncs ii. 761 

V. Ives ii. 756 

V. Jones ii. 46, 54 

V. Knox Co. Ins. Co. ii. 43.3, 438 
V. Lawrence iii. 172 

V. Merriraac Ins. Co. ii. 455 

V. Phillips i. 149 

V. Purington i. 176 ; ii. 266 

V. Rounds ii- 26 

V. Shaw iii. 457 

Phillips V. Smith iii. 226 

V. Stevens i. 504 

V. Thompson iii. 60, 392, 402 

V. Wright ii. 262 

Phillis V. Gentin i. 405 

Philpot V. Bryant i. 38.) 

V. Hoare iii. 492 

V. Wallet ii. 63 

Philpott V. Elliott . iii. 397 

PhiUpott «. Jones ii. 630 

PhiUpotts V. Evans ii. 676 ; iii. 2!)9 

Phipps, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Anglesea ii. 586 

u. Chase i. 278 

u. Jones i. 452 

Phcenix v. Assig. of Ingraham, iii. 425, 486 

Phcenix Bank v. Hussey i. 287 

P. H. White, The, w. Levy ii. 271 

rhyfe V. Warden iii. 364 

Phyn V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. ii. 378 

Pianciani v. L. & S. W. By. Co. ii. 247 

Piatt V. Eads i. 269 

V. Oliver i. 149 

Pickai'd V. Low i. 571 

V. Sears ii. 793, 801 

V. Valentine i. 276 

Pickas V. Guile ii. 99 

Pickering v. Appleby iii. 50 

u. Banks iii. 119 

V. Barclay ii. 163 

V. Bishop of Ely iii. 368, 409 

V. Busk i. 8, 57, 60, 99 ; ii. 796 

V. Dowson i. 547, 589 ; ii. 548 

V. Fisk ii. 588 

V. Holt ii. 301 

V. Pickering i. 128, 347 

Pickett V. King iii. 76 

V. Swann i. 370 

Pickford a. Grand Junction Raihvav 

Co. ii. 172, 173, 175, 177 

Pickman v. Woods ii. 287, 293 

Pickney v. Hogadom i. 48, 49 

Picquet v. Cormick ii. 742 

V. Curtis i. 272, 273 

Pidcock V. Bishop ii. 8, 777 

Pidgin V. Cram i. 304, 306 

Pichl V. Balchen ii. 337, 34 2 

Pierce v. Andrews ii. 794, 800 

!>. Benjamin iii. 197 

V. Brown ii. 797 

V. Burnham ii. 85 

V. Butler ii. 539 

V. Cameron i. 465 

L-. Puller ii, 750 

V. Jackson i. 186, 204, 205, 206 

V. Minturn i. 507 

V. O'Keefe i. 104 

V. Parker i. 714 

V. Pendar i. 278, 281 

V. Schenck ii. 134 

V. Selleck ii. 534 

.;. State, The ii. 493 




Pierce v. Struthcrs 

i. 281 

V. Trigg 

i. 150, 152 

V. Tliornely 

iii. 467, 481 

V. Whitney 

i. 278 

V. Wood 

ii. 781 

V. Woodward 

ii. 731 

Clarli & Co. V. Knight ii. 629, 

633, 634 

Pierpont v. Graham i. 179, 184, 195, 426 

Piers V. Piers ii. 77 

Pierson v. Dunlop iii. 244 

V. Eagle Screw Co. iii. 165 

V. Hoolcer i. 26, 179, 186 

V. Hutchinson i. 292 

V. McCahiU i. 439 

Pigeon V. Osborn ii. 743 

Pigott's Case ii. 716, 717 

Pigott V. Bagley i. 200 

V. Thompson i. 457 

Pilve V Balch ii. 278 

V. Gage ii. 694 

V. Galvin ii. 790 

V. Irwin ii. 7 

V. McDonald iii. 507 

V. Munroe ii. 506 

0. Warren iii. 81 

Pilford's Case iii. 220 

Pilkington v. Scott ii. 34, 44, 750 

Pillans V. Van Microp i. 8, 267, 429, 431 

Pilmore v. Hood ii. 780 

Pirn u. Curell i. 500 

V. Downing i. 135 

V. Rcid ii. 435 

Pinckncy v. Hagadom i. 54, 55 

Pincombe v. Rudge iii. 225 

Pindall v. The North- Western Banlc 

ii. 622 
Pinder v. Morris iii. 270 

Pine V. Smith i. 259 

Pingree v. Comstock iii. 428 

Pinhorn v. Tuckington iii. 151 

Pinkerton v. Caslon ii. 691 

W.Marshall i. 241 

Pinkham v. Macy i. 283 

Pinkston v. Brewster ii. 798 

V. Huie ii. 231 

Pinnel's Case i. 222 ; ii. 618, 619 

Pinney v. Barnes ii. 730 ; iii. 188, 189, 

Pinnock v. Harrison iii. 235 

Pintard !'. Tackingtoa i. 292 

Pinto c. Santos i. 89 

ri|)e 1'. Bateman i. 214 

Piper I'. iMiinny ii. 146 

V. Smith i. 202 

Pipon V. Cope ii. 378, 379 

I'. Pipon iii, 452 

Piqua Bank v. Knoup iii. 545 

Pi lie V. Anderson ii. 275 

Piscataqua Bridge v. New Hamp- 
shire Bridge iii. 536. 537, 540, .541, 
543. 544 

Pitcairn v. Ogbourne ii. 7.3 

Pitcher v. Bailey i. 37 

V. I3arruws i. 169 

V. Livingston iii. 1 65, 224, 226 

V. Tovey iii. 467, 492 

V. Wilson ii. 44 ; iii. 36 

Pitchford v. Davis i. 145 

Pitkin V. Brainerd ii. 300 

V. Flanagan i. 36 

V. Pitkin i. 201 

V. The Long Island R. R. 

Company iii. 36 

V. Thompson iii. 443 

Pitman v. Hooper ii. 338 

Pits V. Wordal ii. 689 

Pitt i,'. Alhrithow ii. 142 

V. Petway i. 88 

V. Purssord i. 33, 471 

V. Smith i. 384; iii. 461 

V. Yaldan i. 114 

Pittam V. Foster i. 389 

Pitts V. Beckett i. 544 ; iii. 10, 13 

V. Congdon i. 285 

V. Mangum i. 432 

u. Waugh i. 167 

Place v. Delegal i. 24 ; ii. 20 

V. Sweetzer i. 209 

Plaisted ;,. B. & K. Steam Naviga- 
tion Co. ii. 160, 172, 314 
Planche' v. Colburn ii. 523, 678 
c. Fletcher ii. 413, 570, 754 
Plank Road v. Griffin i. 454 
Plant, ex parte ■ iii. 468 
Planters Bank v. Markham ii. 538 
V. Scllman i. 283 
V. Sharp iii. 528, 532, 553 
V. Snodgrass iii. 130 
V. Stockman ii. 632 
Piatt V. Drake i. 283 
u. Hibbard ii. 125, 141, 143, 179 
V. Squire ii. 798 
Platte V. Routh iii. 287 
Pleasants v. Pendleton i. 537 
V. Pleasants i. 405 
Plimraer v. Sells i. 48 
Plimpton V. Curtiss iii. 36 
Flitt, ex parte iii. 269 
Fiomer v. Long ii. 632, 634 
Plowman r. McLane ii. 651 
Pluckwell i'. Wilson ii. 232 
Phimleigh v. Dawson iii. 218 
Plummer v. McKean iii. 160 
V. Wildman ii. 326 
Plunkctt V. Methodist Episc. Society 

iii. 356 
Poe V. Duck iii. 440, 441, 554 

Poiudexton v. Blackburn iii. 481 

Poland V. Glyn iii. 486 

Pole V. Ford i. 285 

Polijlass V. Oliver ii. 622 

PolhiU V. Walter i. 67, 68; ii. 774 

Pollard «. Baylor iii. 116 



Polk.d V. Baylors iii. 116 

I'. Cocke iii. 513 

V. Sclioly iii. 107, 115 

V. Shaaffer i. 504, 505 

V. Somerset Ins. Co. ii. 354, 355, 


D. Stanton i. 167 

Pollfexen c. Moore iii. 277 

Pollocfe V. Babcoclc ii. 375 

I'. Donaldson ii. 359 

■/.Hall ii. 711 

v. Pratt iii. 507 

V. Stables i. 58, 81 ; ii. 539 

V. Stacy ii. 503 

Polyaore v. Prince ii. 600 

Pomeroy v. Burnett iii. 228 

V. Bonaldson ii. 169 

V. Smith ii. 120 

Pomfret v. Ricroft i. 503 ; ii. 127, 534 

Pomroy v. Kingsley iii. 513 

Pond V. Locliwood i. 259 

V. Underwood i. 80 

V. Williams i. 28 ; ii. 630 ; iii. 76 

Ponder v. Carter i. 37 ; iii. 91 

0. Graliam iii. 545 

Pontz V. La. Ins. Co. ii. 359 

Pool V. Pratt ii. 62 

Poole's Case i. 512, 513 

Poole V. Hill i. 24 

V. Palmer ii. 795 

V. Protection Ins. Co. ii. 388 

V. Tumbridge ii. 636, 637 

Pooley V. Brown iii. 290 

V. Budd iii. 364, 375 

I V. Goodwin iii. 341 

V. Harradine i. 257 

Poor V. Hazleton i. 343 

Pope V. Brett ii. 690, 698 

u. Duncannon iii. 378 

V. Harkins ii. 797 

V. Nance i. 265 

V. Niekerson ii. 276, 283, 285, 319, 

334, 336 

V. Onslow iii. 468, 471 

V. Randolph i. 165, 235 

V. Eisley i. 204 

V. Tunstall ii. 683 

Popham V. Eyre iii. 354, 386, 390 

Poplewell 0. Wilson i. 250 

Pordage v. Cole ii. 527, 529 

Port V. Jackson iii. 1 86 

V. Turton iii. 460 

Porter v. Androscoggin & Ken. K. R. 

Co i. 141 

V. Ballard i. 229 

V. Bank of Rutland i. 78 

V. Blood ii. 661 ; iii. 237 

V. Bussey ii. 358 

V. Cocke iii. 513 

V. Dougherty iii. 352 

V. Judson i. 278 

V. Lane ii. 736 

Porter V. Langhorn 

ii. 11 

V. McCoUum 

i. 242 

V. Morris 

ii. 745 

V. Hunger 

iii. 103 

V. Pettengill 

i. 537 

V. Providence Ins. 


ii. 324 

* u. Sawyer 

ii. 757 

V, Stewart 

ii. 660 

V. Taylor ii. 615 

V. Vorley iii. 469, 496, 498 

V. Wilson i. 176 

Porthouse v. Parker i. 188, 282 

Portland Bank v. Apthorp iii. 547 

V. Brown ii. 632, 635 

V. Hyde i. 165 

V. Stacey ii. 259, 275 

V. Stubbs ij. 275, 280 ; 

iii. 487 

Portwood V. Outton iii. 477 

Post V. Jones ii. 276, 320, 336 

V. Kimberly i. 162, 173 

V. Phosnix Ins. Co. ii. 412 

V. Post i. 514 

Postlethwait v. Garrett iii. 113, 121 

V. Parkes ii. 71 

Postmaster-General v. Purber ii. 633 

V. Norvell ii. 634 

V. Reeder ii. 17 

Pothonier v. Dawson iii. 237, 272 

Pott V. Clcgg iii. 71 

V. Eyton i. 162 

V. Todhunter ii. 555 

I'. Turner iii. 460 

Potter V. Brown ii. 600 ; iii. 452 

V. Deboos ii. 63 

V. Irish ii. 265 

V. Kerr iii. 440 

u. Marine Ins. Co. ii. 371 

V. Mayo i. 116 ; iii. 269 

ti. McCoy i. 188 

V. Morland ii. 537 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 326 

V. Ontario & Livingston Mut. 

Ins. Co. ii. 459, 498 

V. Providence Ins. Co. ii. 381, 396 

V. Sanders i. 483 

V. Suffolk Ins. Co. ii. 376 

V. Tyler i. 255 

V. Yale College iii. 112 

Pottinger v. Wightmau ii. 582 

Potts V. Henderson i. 64 

Poucher v. Holley ii. 735 

f. Norman ii. 56 

Pougett V. Tompkins ii. 83 

Poulter V. Killingbeck iii. 33 

Pounsett V. Fuller iii. 208 

Pourie v. Fraser i. 41) 

Powell V. Biddle ii. 550, 562 

V. Bradlee ii. 773 

V. Brown i. 431 

i.. Divett ii. 718 

I/. Edmunds i. 49^ 



Powell V. Gvaham 

i. 129 

V. Hinsdale 

iii. 202 

V. Horton 

ii. .^36 

V. Hyde 

ii. 379 

V. Little 

ii. 6U 

V. Lylcs 

i. r)74 

V. Manson Maniif. 


*. 365 

V. Mvers 

ii. 199 

V. M' & B. Manuf. 


iii. 221, 

V. ISrewbuvgh 

iii. 192 

V. Siilisbury 

iii. 182 

c. Smith 

iii. 186 

V. Tuttle 

i. 83 

V. Vfatars 


120, 144 

Power V. Bavliam 

i. 580 

V. Finnie 

i. 252 

V. Kent 

iii. 269 

„. Whitmore ii. 326, 416, 538 
Powers V. Fowler iii. 1 5 
V. Halo iii. 361, 414 
V. Nash i. 32 
V. Ware ii. 721 
Powhattan Steamboat Co. u. Appo- 
mattox R. R. Co. ii. 177, 765 
Powis V. Smith i. 22 
Puwles v. Hider i. 103 
V. Innes ii. 355 
V. Paire i. 77 
Powley V. Walker i. 505 
Pownal V. Ferrand i. 47ij 
Poydras v. IMourain i. 412 
Prather v. Vineyard iii. 26 
Pratt's Case iii, 519 
V. Adams iii. 108, 109, 114 
V. Bryant ii. 137 ; iii. 199 
I,. Chase iii. 44 
V. Flamor i. 337 
V. Foote ii. 625 
V. Hackett ii. 690, 7on 
V. Hubbard ii. 592 
V. Hu^tjins iii. 100 
u. Humphrey iii. 22 
V. llutchinbon i. 144 
V. Law iii. 402 
V. Parkman ii. 275 
V. Rccd ii. 260, 333 
V. Kiissell i. 382 
V. Willcy iii. 109 
Pray v. Gorliam i. 308 
V. Miiinc i. 261 ; ii. 6 
Prebblu v. B(in;!iurst i. 436 ; iii. 416 
Preble r. Baldwin iii. 22, 35 
Precious r. Abel i. 57 
Prentice v. Arhorn i. 384 ; iii. 417 
u. Reed ii. 703 
1-. Zane i. 259 
Prentiss v. Daniolson i. 271 
V. Graves i. 243 
V. Russ ii. 777 
V. Savage ii. 583 
V. Sinclair i. 169 

Presbrey v. Williams ii. Cr,4 

Pri'sbury v. IMorris i. 585 
Prcsb. Oliureh v. City of New York 

ii. 674 

Conjjr. !'. Williams ii 7a8 

Prcscott, ex parte iii. 483, .'514 

V. ii. 513 

Prcscott, ex parte iii. 468, 512 

p. Brinsley i. 251 

V. Brown i. 345 

0. Elms i. 513 

V. Flinn i. 48 

V. Holmes i. 574 

V. Hull i. 229 

u. Norris i. 298 

V. Pai'ker iii. 103 

V. Trueman iii. 228 

President, &c. v. Ogle ii. 745 

Presley v. Daris i. 308 

Preston r. Boston i. 466 

i\ Christmas ii. 6.S7 

V. Darson i, 278 

c. Greenwood ii. 366 

f. Jackson iii. 119 

( . Merceau ii. 548 

V. Tubbin iii. 28.i 

Prestwick r. Marshall i. 48, 352 

Preussin;^ i\ Iiig iii. 310 

l'iev(js[ f. Gratz ii. 723 

Pi-cwett V, Carriithers i. 382, 434 

Piiee V. Alexander i. 110 

I. Aslicton iii. 409 
V. Barker i. 286 
r. Benini;ton i. 386 
V. Boultby iii. 343 
V. Corporation of Penzance iii. 355 
V. Dyer iii. 415 
V. Easton i. 466 
i. Green iii. 158, 160 
V. GritBth iii. 354, 3?2 
I'. Harwood ii. 798 
V. Hewctt i. :'A7 
V. Justrobe iii. 215 
V. Lea iii. 44 

II. Macauley iii. 414 
V. Neale i. 264 
o. Page ii. 5.')7, 564 
c. Powell ii. 195, 296 
V Ralston iii. 4S2 
L\ Ricliardson iii. 16 
i'. Seaman i. 445 
11. Severn iii. 175 
V. Thomas iii. .338 
V. Tyson ii. 712 
r. Upshaw iii. S'J 

Prickett v Badger i. 90 

Pride «. Earl of Bath ii. 82 

Prideaux v. Biii'nett i. 588 

Pridgeu V. Andrew iii. 105 

V. Hill iii. 90 

Pricgcr v. Exchange Ins Co. ii. 430 

Priest V. Citizens Ins. Co. ii. ■161 



Priestley v. Foulds 

ii. 507 

u. Fowler 

ii. 42 

Primrose v. Bromley 

iii. 465 

Primus, The 

ii. 398 

Prince v. Clark 

i. 81, 82 

<.-. Fuller 

ii. 739 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. 


276, 385 

Prince Edward v. Trevellick 

ii. 346 

George, The 

ii. 339 

Regent, The 

ii. 285 

Princessa, The 

ii. 399 

Princeton v. Gulick 

i. 170 

Pringle v. M'Clenachan 

ii. 701 

V. Phillips 

i. 255 

Prior V. Hembrow 

I. 131 

; ii. 712 

Priscilla, The 

ii. 285 

Pritchard v. Brown 

ii. 790 

V. Howell 

iii. 66 

u. Martin 

ii. 40 

V. Merchants Ass. 


ii. 488 

V. Ovey iii. 368, 


374, 383 

u. Schooner Lady 

Horatio i. 78 

Pritchett v. Ins. Co. 

ii. 363 

Probart v. Knputh 

i. 298 

Proctor V. Keith 

i. 504 

V. Jones 

iii. 42 

V. Moore iii. 


443, 455 

V. Nicholson 


150, 156 

u. Sargent 

ii. 750 

Proiilet v. Hall 

ii. 149 

Propert v. Parker 

iii. 6 

Px'oprietors of Canal Bridge v. Gor- 
don i. 139 
of Ken. Purchase v. La- 

boree iii. 557 

Trent Navigation v. Wood 

ii. 158, 159, 169 
Prosser v. Edmonds i. 224, 226 

V. Hooper i. 594; ii. 677 

Protection Ins. Co. v. Hall ii. 369 

V. Wilson ii. 361, 368 
Proudfoot, ex parte iii. 472 

Prouty V. Roberts i. 257 

Providence, The ii. 338 

Providentia, The ii. 398 

Providence Bank v. Billings iii. 532, 534, 
544, 545, 549 

Provost V. Wilcox 

ii. 271 

Prudence v. Bermodi 


Prugnell v. Gosse 


748, 749 

Puckett t). Smith 

iii. 188 

V. United States 

i. 594 

Pudor V. B. & M. R. R. 


ii. 2.')6 

Pugh V. Bassell 



440, 554 

V. Ches.'ieldine 

ii. 656 

0. Currie' 


150, 152 

V. Duke of Leeds 



503, 662 

V. Durfce ' 

i. 259 

V. Good 

iii. 392 

Pnlcifer v. Page 

ii. 1.36 

PulUin V. Shaw 

ii. 722 

Palling V. Tucker 

iii. 485 

Pulsifer V. Hotchkiss 

i. 465 

Pulteney v. Shelton 

iii. 37,<J 

Pultney v. Keymer 

i. 93 

; iii. 266 

Pulvertoft V. Pulvertoft 

iii. 362 

Purchell v. Salter 


743, 795 

Purdew v. Jackson 

iii. 482 

Purdy V. Delavan 

u. 694, 

695, 697 

u. Philips 

iii. 103 

Purviance v. Sutherland 

i. 188 

Purvis V. Rayer 

iii. 379 

Pusey V. Clemsou 

ii. 716 

V. Pusey 

iii. 375 

Putnam v. Dutch 

ii. 275 

V. Putnam 

ii. 593 

V. Ritchie 

iii. 222 

V. Sullivan 

i. 271 

V. Tillotson 


289, 537 

V. Wise 


154, 163 

V. Wood 

ii. .302 

Pye, ex parte 

iii. 360 

V. Daubuz 

iii. 471 

Pyke V. Thomas 

ii. 750 

Pyle, &c. V. Cravens 

i. 295 

V. Partridge 

iii. 295 

Pyrke v. Waddingham 

iii. 380 


Quackenbush v. Danks iii. 552 
Quantock v. England iii. 62, 100 
Quarles v. Brannou iii. 1 1 7 
V. George ii. 668 
I'. Quarles i. 430 
Quarman v. Burnett i. 106, 108 
V. Wheeler i. 51 
Quebec Ins. Co. v. St. Louis ii. 441 
Queen v. Nevill ii. 502 
o. Inhabitants of Stoke-on- 
Trent ii. 537 
V. L. &. S. Railway Co. ii. 795 
Queiroz v. Trueman i. 93; iii. 242, 261 
Queliu !'. Moisson iii. 452 
Quick V. Ludborrow ii. 532, 715 
Quimby v. Putnam iii. 85 
Quince v. Callender ii. 585 
Quincey i'. Quincey ii. 562 
Quiacy, ex parte i. 512 
c. Hall iii. 97 
V. Quincy i. 354 
V. Tilton i. 609 ; ii. 678 
Quinebaug Bank v. Tarbox ii. 728 
Quinn v. Fuller i. 1 88 
Quinsigamond Bank v. Hobbs iii. 115 


Raba v. Ryland 
Rabaud_ v. Tie Wolf 
Rabone v. Williams 
Racehorse, The 

iii. 273 

ii 6, 7 

ii. 713, 744 

ii. 306 



Eackham v. Marriott iii. 69 

Kackstraw v. Iraber i. 1 64 

Kadford v. Smith i. 532, 538 

Radley v. Manning iii. 115, 125 

Rafferty v. New Brun. Ins, Co. ii. 425, 426 

RafEn, ex parte iii. 281 

Ragan v. Kennedy i. 530 

Ragg V. King ii. 339 

Raiguel v. Ayliff i. 249 

Raikes v. Todd iii. 15, 16 

Railroad Co. v. Aspell ii. 231 

Railton v. Hodgson i. 63 

a. Matliews ii. 8, 776 

Rainey v. Capps ii. 759 

Rainsford v. Fenwick i. 297 

V. Smith ii. 789, 790 

Rainwater v. Durham i. 297 

Raitt V. Mitchell ii. 538 ; iii. 248, 255 

Rake v. Pope iii. 39 

Raleigh v. Atkinson i. 70 

Ralli V. Jansou ii. 368 

Ralph V. Brown ii. 728 

Ralston y. The State Rights ii. 314; iii. 173 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 386 

Rambert v. Cohen iii. 348 

Ramsay v. George i. 343 

V. Joyce i. 370 

Ramdulollday v. Darieux i. 271 

Ramires v. Kent i. 397 

Ramsbotham v. Cator i. 252 

Kamsbottom v. Davis iii. 299 

u. Gosden iii. 357 

V. Mortley iii. 347 

Ramsdale v. Horton ii. 622 

Ramsdell v. Morgan iii. 127 

V. Sigerson iii. 426, 449 

Eamden v. Hylton ii. 502 

Ramsour u. Thomas ii. 632 

Ramstrom v. Bell iii. 322, 323 

Ranay v. Alexander i. 538 

Rand v. Hubbard i. 241 

V. Mather i. 455 ; iii. 18 

V. The Barge ii. 272 

Randall v. Harvey i. 442 

V. Howard ii. 772 

V. Lynch ii. 305 

V. Moon ii. 618 

V. Morgan ii. 71 ; iii. 30 

V. Randall ii. 85 

V. Rhodes i, 598 

V. Sweet i. 298 

V. Van Vetchtcn i. 52, 69, 110, 139 

V. Wilkins iii. 96 

V. Willis iii. 407 

Randel v. Chesapeake & Delaware 

Canal Co. ii. 708 

Randle v. Puller ii. 736 

V. Harris ii. 10; iii. 25 

Randleson, ex parte i. 630 

V Murray i. 108 

Rangely v. Spring • ii. 797 

Ranger w. Carey i. 255, 256 

Ranken v. Reeve ii. 414 

Rankin v. Am. Ins. Ins. Co. ii. 357, 376 

V. Blackwell ii. 723 

I/. Huskisson iii. 376 

V. Lodor iii. 426 

V. Lydia i. 419 

V. Matthews i. 494 

V. Scott iii. 238 

V. Simpson iii. 388 

V. Woodworth iii. 93 

Ranking v. Barnard iii. 474 

Rann v. Hughes i. 8, 429 

Ranney v. Edwards ii. 706 

Rannie v. Irvine ii, 750 

Ranson v. Mack i. 281 

Rapelye v. Anderson i. 258 ; iii. 144, 147 

V. Bailey ii. 22 

o. Mackie i. 528 

Raphael v. Bank of Eng. i. 255 

V. Birdwood iii. 515 

V. Boehm i. 122 

V. Pickford ii. 183 

Rapid, The ii. 323 

Rapier v. Holland ii. 738 

Rapp, ex parte iii. 464 

u. Latham i. ISo 

V. Palmer ii, 541 

V. Kapp ii. 493 

Rashleigh, ex pai-te iii, 515 

EatcliHe v. Allison iii. 388 

V. Planters Bank i, 271 

Rathbone v. Payne ii. 230, 231, 311 

P>attoon V. Overacker i. 131 

Kavee v. Farmer ii, 699 

Raw V. Cutten iii, 465, 471 

Rawlings v. Bell ii, 7T5 

V. Boston i. 402 

RawUns v. Goldfrap i, 312 

V. Jenkins ii, 501 

V. Vandyke i, 302, 307, 352, 

353, 361 

Rawlinson v. Oriet ii, 725 

u. Pearson iii, 460 

c. Shaw ii, 715 

V. Stone i, 241 

Rawson v. Johnson i. 537 

V. Walker iii. 469 

Rawstorne ;'. Gandell ii. 617 

Ray V. Bank of Kentucky iii. 398 

<;. Catlett ' ii, 759 

V. Sherwood ii. 597 

Raymond v. Bcarnard ii, 6.')9 

V. Fitch i, 129, 130 

V. Loyl i. 297, 305, 308 

V. Proprietors of Crown & 

Eagle Mills i. 65 

('. Roberts ii. 503 

V. Tyson ii, 2S3 

Rayne v. Orton i, 2j 

Rayner v. Grote i, 65 

V. Linthorne iii. 11 

;;. Stone iii. 372 



Rea V. Cutler 

ii. 325 

Reed v. Upton 

ii. 624 

u. Duikee 

i. 353 

V. White 

ii. 269 

V. Gibbons 

ii. 700 

V. Wilmott i 

. 520; iii. 331 

Eeab v. Moor 

ii. 33, 36 

V. Wood 

i. 548, 549 

Kead, ex parte ' 

iii. 465 

Reeder v. Craig 

ii. 791 

V Bouliam 

ii. 390 

Reedie v. Lond. & N. Western Rail- 

V. Cole ii 

355, 373 

way Co. 

i. 105, 108 

I'. Cutts 

ii. 29 

Reedie v. Seixas 

i. 283 

V. Dupper 

ii. 736 

Rees V. Overbaugh 

ii. 719 

V. GoUlring ii 

639, 643 

Reese v. Bradford 

i. 204 

V. Grauliury 

ii. 536 

Reeside Schooner i. 547; ii 


V. Hull of a New Brig 

ii. 263 

V. Knox 

i. 2-19 

V. Legard 

i. 350 

Reeve v. Bird 

i. 509, 510 

V. Long 

iii. 360 

V. Parkins 

i. 203 

V. Nash 

iii. 24, 28 

Reeves v. Capper ii. 116, 

281 ; iii. 23 S, 

V. Pusset 

ii. 77 


V. Rann 

i. 99 

V. Heame 

ii. 683 

V. Spaulding 

ii. 161 

V. The Ship Constitution ii. 121, 

V. Taft 

i. 456 


i,'. Teakee 

i. 351 

Regina v. Ambergate, &.c. R 

Co. ii. 800 

Reade v. Com. Ins. Co. 

ii. 412 

V. Basinstoke 

ii. 795 

V. Lamb 

iii. 57 

V. Millis 

ii. 78, 79 

V. Livingston 

i. 369 

V. Smith 

ii. 41, 50 

Reading v. Blackwell 

i. 135 

V. Welch 

ii. 45 

Reakert v. Sanford 

i. 352 

V. Wheeler 

i. 512 

Ileal Estate Ins. Co. v. Roessle 

ii. 350, 

Rehoboth v. Hunt 

iii. 528 


Reid V. Barber 

i. 575 

Eeam v. Rank 

iii. 223 

V. Darby 

ii. 278 

Rebecca, Tlie ii. 172, 287 

311, 334 

V. Fairbanks 

ii. 259 

Eeaney v. Culbertson 


V. Harvey 

ii. 402 

Reay v. White 

ii. 636 

V. HoUinshead i. 

147 ; iii. 273 

Recuist's Case 

iii. 348 

V. Hoskins 

ii. 305, 674 

Reddick v. Jones 

i. 259 

V. McNaugliton 

iii. 82 

Redding v. Hull i. 505 ; ii 

127, 129 

V. Morrison 

i. 274 

V. Wilkes 

iii. 394 

V. Rensselaer Glass Factory iii. 102, 

Redhead v. Cator 

ii. 30 


Redman w. Redman 

ii. 73 

Reilly v. Jones 

iii. 161, 163 

V. Wilson ii 

374, 409 

Reinheimer o. Heramingway 

i. 209 

Red Rover, The 

ii. 321 

Reinicker v. Smith i. 

384; iii. 417 

Reece v. Allen 

iii. 421 

Relf V. Ship Mana i 

391 ; ii. 344 

R«ech V. Kennegal 

iii. 397 

Reliance, The 

ii. 341 

V. Kennigate 

iii. 397 

Remelee v. Hall 

iii. 189 

Reed v. Bartlett 

ii. 687 

Remer v. Downer 

i. 279 

V. Boardman 

ii. 630 

Remick v. O'Kyle 

i. 272 

V. Bostick 

iii. 269 

Remington v. Harrington 

i. 280 

V. Canfield ii. 

342, 343 

Remnants in Court 

ii. 263 

V. Chambers 

iii. 383 

Remon v. Hayward ii. 

556; iii. 296 

V. Deere iii. 

296, 342 

Renard v. Sampson 

ii. 300, 548 

V. Evans 

iii. 16 

Renaux v. Teakle 

i. 348, 349 

V. Garvin 

ii. 3 

Reniger v. Eogossa 

i. 6 ; ii. 534 

V. EuUam 

iii. 15 

Rennell v. Kiraball 

ii. 269, 333 

V. Howard 

i. 208 

Eenner v. Bank of Columbia 

i. 276; 

V. Jewett i. 

530, 569 

ii. 538 

V. Marsh 

i. 267 

Rennifk v. Ficklin 

i. 356 

V. Moore 

i. 353 

Rennie v. Robinson 

ii. 797 

v. Murphy i. 

160, 238 

Reno V. Hogan 

ii. 237, 248 

V. Pacific Ins. Co. 

ii. 353 

Renteria v. liuding 

i. 289 

V. Rann 

ii. 524 

Ronton o. Chaplain 

i. 196 

V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 

ii. 479 

Ronwick v. Williams i. 

257; iii. 495 

V. Shaw 

ii. 713 

Repplier v. Orrich 

iii. 426 

V. Shepardson i. 

205, 207 

Rerick v. Hearn 

iii. 359 

V. Smith 

iii. 120 

Resor v. Johnson 

ii. 47 



"Resiiltatet, The 

ii. 322 


V. Twyning 

ii. 448 

Revenue Cutter, The 

ii. 263 

V. Varlo 

i. 142 

Revens v. Lewis 

ii. 268, 334 

V. Webb 

i. 144 

Reusse v Meyers 

ii. 275 

V. Westwood 

i. 142 

Rew V. Pettet 

i. 122 

V. Wbitnash 

ii. 758 

Rex V. Adderley 

ii. 664 

0. Wroxtou 

ii. 83 

V. Alien 

iii. 116 


nell V. Lewis 

i. 48, 145 

V. Bellringer 

i. 142 

Reyner v. Hall 

ii. 414 

V. Billingshurst 

ii. 83 

Reynolds, ex parte iii. 


465, 471 

!). Birdbrooke 

ii. 34 

V. Douglass 

ii. 37 

V. Bower 

i. 142 

V. Doyle 

iii. 91 

V. Brampton 

ii. 35, 598 

V. Fenton 

ii. 606 

V. Brotherton 

ii. 757 

o. Lounsburg 

ii. 794 

». Butterton 

ii. 796 

ti. Magness 

ii. 557 

u. Carlile 

ii. 788 

V. Nelson 

iii. 386 

V. Castle Morton 

iii. 347 

V. Oeeaa Ins. Co 



V. Christ's Parish 

ii. 33 


t!. Cole i 

314: iii. 462 

V. Pinhowe 

ii. 686 

V. Collector of the Customs ii. 265 

V. Railroad 

i. 598 

V. Collicutt 

iii. 339 

u. Rowley 

i. 43 

V. Cording 

iii. 238 

V. Shuler 


513, 518 

V. Cumberland 

ii. 664 

V. Stevenson 

ii. 760 

V. Da Hales Owea 

ii. 51 

V. Toppan i. 161 

; ii 

181, 185 

V. Friend 

i. 307 

V. Waller 

i. 384 

V. Gilson 

iii. 345 

Rhea v. Rhenner 

i. 367 

V. Girdwood 

ii. 493 

Rhinelander v. Ins. Co. of Penn 

ii. 379 

V (ifreat Borden 

ii. 33 

Rhines v. Phelps 

i. 571 

V. Great Wigston 

i. 315 

Rhodes, ex parte 

ii. 735 

V. Gutch 

i. 103 

V. ibbetson 

iii. 415 

V. Hanger 

ii. 120 

V. Lindly 

i. 248 

V. Hall 

iii. 345 

V. Rhodes 


392, 394 

i;. Harbome 

ii. 485 

V. Thuiates 

i. 528 

V. Hawkesworth 

ni. 339, 344 


, ex parte 

iii. 463 

V. Hay 

ii. 485 

u. Austin 

i. 98, 205 

V. Hertford 

ii. 90 

V. Barnard i. 


204, 205 

V. Humphery ii. 

144; iii. 268 

V. Bixlee 

i. 438 

V. Ivens 

ii. 150 

V. Cade 

i. 413 

V. Laindon 

ii. 557 

V. Churchill 

ii. 649 

V. LoUey 

ii. 605 

V. Courtis 

ii. 683 

V. Loudonthorpe 

i. 512 

V. Dwiglit Man. Co. 

ii. 36 

V. Mainwaring 

ii. .501 

t . Gist 

ii. 756 

V. Manning 

i. 207 

V. Gordon 

i. 493 

V. Mary Mead 

i. 357 

V. Homer 

ii. 384 

V. Milsom 

i. 242 

V. King 

iii. 188 

V. Munden 

i. 312 

V. JIather 

iii. 144 

V. Nutt 

i. 103 

V. Maxwell 

iu. 523 

V. Pcdley 

i. 105 

V. New England Ins. Co. 

ii. 402, 

V. Pendleton 

iii. 342 


(/. Pooley 

iii. 345 

V. Peet 

i. 384 

«;. Rawdon 

iii. 300 

V. Richards 

i. 201 

V. Reeulist 

iii. 3.:;9 

V, Sims 

i. 448 

V. Reeks 

iii. 299 

tJ. Stearns 

i. 263 

V. Ridgwell 

iii. 329 

V. Tower 



u. Robinson 

iii. 493 

(/. Welling 

iii. 116 

V. Scammondea 

ii. 554, 557 


V. Aldred 

ii. 94 

V. Sedialey 

ii. 516 

V. Basterfield 

i. 108 

V. Shatton 

i. 100 

V. Jackson i. 494 


357, 398 

V. Stevens 

ii. 664 

V. Kneeland 

ii. 169 

V. St. John 

ii. 35 

V. Lambert 



V. St. IMarv's 

ii. 513 

V. Lord 


502, 714 

V. St. Paul's, Be-lford 

iii. 347 

o. Parker 

ii. 397 

V. Tooley 

iii. 345 i 

V. Topping 

iii. 109 



Richard Busted, TIw 


260, 262, 264 

Riddell V. Sutton 

i. 129 

Eichards v. Brockcnbrough 

ii. 689, 690 

Riddle v. Bowman 

i. 33 

V. Brown 

iii. 108, 140 

0. Brown 

iii. 34 

V. Drinker 

ii. 691 

V. Vnrnura 

i. .528 

u. Hazzard 

iii. 426 

V. Welden 

i. 518 

V. Hudson 

iii. 455 

Riddlesden v. Wogan 

ii. 82 

f. James 

ii. 742 

Rider v. Ocean Ins. Co. 


271, 736 

</. London, 



D. Pond 

ii. 531 


177, 190, 199 

u. Ridgley 


277, 278 

1/. Miiiyland Ins. 

Co. .iii. 470 

and Fisher, in re 

ii. 692 

V. Merriam 

iii. 471 

Ridge i;. Pratlier 

iii. 513 

I'. Porter 

iii. 5 

Ridgeley v. Crandall 

i. 295 

V. Riehurds 

ii. 84 

Ridgeway v. Day 

i. 278 

Bichardson, ex parte 

iii. 520 

Ridgway's Appeal 

i. 156 

in re 

iii. 504 

V. English 

ii. 47 

V. Boright 

i. 327, 328 

V. Hungerford Market Co. 

V. Brown 

i. 580 

ii. 33, 40 

V. Clark 

ii. 274 

V. Philip 

i. 171 

V. Duncan 

i. 392, 393 

V. Wharton iii 


387, 390 

V. Fen 

iii. 62, 63 

Ridley v. Gyde 

iii. 486 

u. French 

i. 183 

!.•. MeNairy 

iii. 392 

V. Goddard 

ii. 187, 296 

Ridout V. Brough 


483, 515 

V. Goss i. 


609; iii. 241, 

Rigby V. Hewitt ii. 


; iii. 180 

255, 266 

Rigden r. JLirtin 


705, 7UH 

0. Jackson 

ii. 645 

I). Wolcott 

iii. 169 

V. Langridge 

i. 513 

Eiggs V. Dooley 

iii. 94 

V. Lincoln 

i. 263 

u. Murray 

iii. 427 

V. Maine Ins. Co. ii. 30.5, 

V. Price 

i. 248 


V. Waldo 

i. 245 

u. Martyr 

i. 249 

Right V. Ba^\■(Ien 

i. 513 

V. Mellish 

i. 439 

V. Bucknell 

ii. 790 

V. Moies 

i. 48 

V. Cuthell 

i. 45 

V. Nourse 

ii. 703 

u. Darby 

i. 513 

V. Richardson 

iii. 99 

V. Proetor 

ii. 789 

V. Bickman 

ii. 684 

Rigs V Cage 

i. 71 

V. Ridgley 

iii. 277, 278 

Riley V. Carter 

ii. 745 

V. Strong 

. 385 ; iii. 461 

V. Cuthell 

i. .50 

u. Watson 

ii. 559 

V. Gerrish 

i. 244 

V. Whiting 

ii. 334 

V. Home 


2.42, 252 

V. Wil. & 

Man. R. R. 

Riley's Adin'rs v. Vanhouton 

ii. 500 


ii. 231 

Rinebart v, Olwine 

iii. 211 

V. Wyatt 

i. 151 

Ring i>, Franklin 

ii. 275 

Riches v. Brigges 

ii. 99 

Ringgold r. Ringgold 

ii. 135 

Richmond v. Smith 

ii. 146, 149 

Ripka V. Pope 

i. 272 

Man. Co. u. 

Stark i. 52 

V. Sergeant 

hi. 218 

E. R. Co. 

. The Louisa 

Ripley v. Cbipman 


. 36, 659 

R. R. Co. 

iii. 534, 437, 

V. Colby 

i. 147 

540, 541 

V. Kingsbury 


173, 182 

Trading, &c 


. v. Far- 

V. McClure 

ii. 676 


i. 582 

u. Scaif'e 

ii. 302 

xvichmondviUe Union 

Seminary v. j 

V. Waterworth 

i. 15U 

Hamilton Ins. Co. 

ii. 457 

V. Woods 

iii. 481 

Ricker v. Cross 

ii. 275 

Rippey v. Miller 

iii. 174 

Eickert v. Snyder 


224, 227, 229 

Rippiner v. Wright 

iii. 347 

Rickets v. Dickens 

i. 574 

Risdale v. Ncwnhani 

ii. 400 

Rickctts V. Bell 

iii. 415 

V. Sheddon 

iii 322 

V. Pendleton 

i. 275 

Rising V. Granger 

iii. 276 

V. Weaver 

i. 130 

Sun, The 

ii. 321 

Eickford v. Ridge 

ii. 623 

Risley V. Risley 

i. 230 

Eickman v. Carstairs 

ii. 362 

Succession of 

ii. 482 

Ricks V. DiUahunty 


574, 575, 581 

Rison V. Wilkerson 

ii. 481 

Ricord v. Betienham 

ii. 327 

Riston V. Cobb 

ii. 550 



Eitchie v. Atkinson i.'463 ; ii. 294, 527, 


V. Smith ii. 753 

u. Williams ii. 715 

Ritter v. The Jamestown ii. 271 

Rivers v. Walker ii. 705 

Rix !>. Adams i. 442 

V, Strong ii. 654 

Rixford v. Nye ii. 690, 698 

Roach V. Ciiapman ii. 260 

V. Garvan ii. 608 

V. Perry i. 203 

V. Quick i._297 

u. Thompson i- 33 

Roads V. Symmes iii. 513 

Robalina v. Armstrong i. 338 

Robard.s i\ Hutson i. 366 

Robb V. Halsey iii. 1 1 4 

V. Montgomery ii. 529, 533 

Robbins v. Alexander , ii. 618 

V. Bacon i. 219, 222, 229 

V. Cooper i. 205 

u. Eaton i. 323, 327, 334 

c. Farley iii. 69 

V. Fennel i. 84 

V. Hay ward i. 123 

V. Luce ii. 6+7 

Robert v. Garnie ii. 630, 632 

c. West i. 369 

Fulton, Ship ii. 264, 726 

Morris, Tlie v. Williamson ii. 27 1 

Roberts i\ Barker i. 510; ii. 538, 547 

o. Bcatty ii. 650, 652, 653, 661 

i>. Berry iii. 384, 386 

u. Chenango Co. Ins. Co. ii. 352, 


V. Connelly ii. 71 

V. Eberhardt i. 196, 204 

u. Eden i. 251 

V. Filler i. 164 

V. GofF iii. 127 

V. Havelock i. 463 ; ii. 521 

V. Jenkins i. 591 

V. Mackoul ii. 736 

0. Madox iii. 336 

V. Miiriett ii. 699 

V. Marston i. 470 

V. Mason i. 278 

V. Morgan i. 581 

u. Ogilby ii. 204 

V. Peake i. 249 

V. Riley ii. 237 

V. Rockbottom Co. ii. 44 ; iii. 38 

V. Smith ii. 43 

V. Spicer iii. 499 

V. Tremoile iii. 139 

D. Trcnayne iii. 113, 116, 138 

V. Tucker ii. 45; iii. 13, 38 

V. Turner ii. 139, 178 

c. Wyatt ii. 119, 128 

Eoberlson v. Brecdlove i. 256 

e. Clarke ii. 538 

Robertson v. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 559 

V. Ewell i. 530 

V. French ii. 494, 501, 516 

u. Jackson ii. 536, 541 

V. Kennedy ii. 163, 167 

V. Kensington i. 252 

V. Ketchum i. 42 

V. Liddell iii. 484 

V. Liyingston i. 58 

V. March i. 453 

V. Money ii. 538 

I,. Smitli i. 12, 29, 187 

V. Stewart iii. 513 

V. St, John i. 500 

V. United Ins. Co. ii. 359 

V. Vaughan iii. 55 

0. Western Ins. Co. ii. 3c7 
Robeson v. French ii. 762 
Robinet v. Cobb ii. 700 
Robinson v. Abell i. 243 

V. Alexander iii. 90 

u. Anderton i. 574 

V. Baker ii. 210 ; iii. 252 

V. Bakewell iii. 165 

V. Bank of Attica iii. 486 

V. Batchelder ii. 555, 647, 648 
I'. Bland ii. 570, 572, 583, 584, 
588, 747; iii. 104, 155 
V. Blcn i. 269 

V. Campbell iii. 220 

V. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 

ii. 276, 384, 388 

1. Cone ii. 231,233 
V. Cook ii. 641 
V. Crowder i. 178; iii. 455 
V. Day i. 271 
V. Dunmore ii. 164, 176 
V. Doolittle ii. 632 
V. Fiske ii. 499 
V. Frost ii. 120 
V. Garth iii. 12 
V. Georges Ins. Co. ii. 708 
V. Gleadow i. 63 
V. Green ii. 518 
V. Greinold i. 347 
t'. Harman iii. 230 
V. Hawkesford i. 261 
I'. Hindman ii. 32 
V. Hofman i. 187 
V. Jones ii. 399, 789 
V. Kettletas iii. 396 
u. Ld. Vernon iii. 340 
u. Lotus, The ii. 27 1 
V. Lyall i. 78 
V. Lyle i. 38 
V. Lyman i. 256 
u. iManslicld iii. 275, 513 
V. Marine Ins. Co. ii. 299 
v. Manuf. Ins. Co. ii. 369 
u. McDonnell i. 522; iii. 329 
u. Mu,sgrove i. 493, 494, 495, 540 
t/. Malion i. 353, 355, 363 



Eobinson v. New York Ins. Co. ii. 54 

V. Noble iii. 194, 217 

V. Offutt ii. 26 

I'. Page iii. 415 

V. Prescott ii. 609, 613 

V. Rapclye iii. 426 

V. Red Jacket, The ii. 271 

V. Reynolds 1. 264, 367 

V. Rice i. 575 
V. Robinson i. 122; ii. 738; 
iii. 186, 351 

V. Snyder ii. 518 

i>. Taylor iii. 499 

i;. Thompson i. 193 
V. Threadgill i. 447; ii. 101, 
u. Tobin ii. 353 ; iii. 323 

V. Touray iii. 323 

V. Vale iii. 516 

I/. Walker i. 12 

V. Walter ii. 156 

V. Ward i. 1 1 4 

V. Wilkinson i. 167 

V. Yarrow i. 48 

Eobison v. Gosnold i. 354 

Eobson !,'. iii. 471 

V. Bennett i. 275 ; ii. 623 

i;. Collins iii. 388 

I/. Curlewis i. 283 

V. Hall iii. 298, 341 

Eocco V. Hackett ii. 612 

Eockwell V. Adams ii. 797 

V. Hobby iii, 280, 477 

V. Hubbell iii. 552 

u. Lawrence iii. 403 

Roderick v. Hovell iii. 314 

Rodes V. Blythe iii. 152 

Eodgers v. Niles i. 586 

V. Smith i. 574 

Eodman v. Hedden iii. 187 

u. Zilley i. 492 

Rodney v. Strode i. 28 

Rodrigues v. Habersham i. 589 

V. Melhnisli ii. 349 

Rodriguez v. HelFernman i. 59, 93 

Rodweli V. Pliillips iii. 32 

Roe, The ii. 318 

o. Archbishops ii. 798 

d. Brune v. Prideaux i. 514 

d. Durant u. Doe i. 513 

V. Harrison ii. 18 

V. Hay ley i. 233 

V. Prideaux i. 81 

V. Tranmarr ii. 504 

Roclandts v. Harrison ii. 400 

Rotfey, ex parte iii. 510 

Rogers v. Allen iii. 456 

V. Atkinson ii. 549 

II. Bachelor i. 185 

V. Boehm i. 89 

V. Brad-iihaw Ui. 540 

K. Bumpass i. 341 

Rogers v. Clifton i . 43 ; iii. 1 66 

V. Coleman ii. 609 

V. Colt ii. 493 

1. Currier ii. 262 

J. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. ii. 504 

f. Fales iii, 165 

</. Hurd i. 295, 323 

V. Kneeland i. 49; iii. 16 

V. Langford i. 262 

V. Ludlow i. 369 

V. March i. 54 

V. Maylor ii. 416 

II. Mc'Carthy iii. 297 

u. Mechanics Ins. Co. ii. 363, 540, 

541, 543 

V. Miller i. 292 

V. Parrey ii, 748 

V. Pitcher ii. 797 

V. Rathbun iii. 126 

V. Rogers i. 135 

V. St. Charles, The ii. 309, 311 

c-. Saunders iii. 387 

V. Smith i. 368 

V. Spence iii. 201, 497 

V. Stephens i. 4.34 

V. Traders Ins. Co. i. 225 ; ii. 361 

V. Thomas i. 595, 597, 598 

Rogerson v. Ladbroke ii. 742 

Rolil V. Parr ii. 308 

Rohr V. Kindt iii. 231 

Roland !>. Gnndy i. 520 

Rolfe V. Abbot i. 300 

V. Kolfe iii. 368, 375, 376 

RoUeston v. Hibbert iii. 487 

V. Smith iii. 487 

Rollins V. Columbian Ins. Co. ii. 450 

V. Mooers iii. 449 

u. Stevens i. 186 

Hotts, ex parte til. 464 

V. Yate i. 14, 31 

Romig r. Romig iii. 196 

Romp, The ii. 280 

Rondeau v. Wyatt iii. 53, 54, 55 

Rood t'. Jones i. 441 

K. Winslow i. 393 

RofFw. Stafford i. 294 

Rooke V. Midland Railway Co. ii. 198 

Roosevelt v. Kellogg ii. 580 

0. Mark iii. 69, 506, 507 

Root V. Crock ii. 791 

t,. Godard i. 265 

V. Lowndes iii. 168 

V. Renwick ii. 703 

V. Taylor ii. 737 

Rooth V. Q'uinn i. 180 

u. Wilson ii. 91 

Roots V. Lord Dormer i. 495 

Roper V. Williams iii. 376 

Rosa V. Brotherson i. 259 

Roscorla v. Thomas i. 446, 473, 580 

Rose V. Boatie i. 584, 585 

u. Bowler i. 129 



Rose V. Clarke 

i. 22+ 

V. Cuuyngliame 

iii. 13 

y. Daniel 

i. 32'J 

V. Dickson 

iii. 109 

V. Hart 

iii. 483, 51.=> 

V. Haycock 
u. Poulton 

iii. 48.5 
i. 21, IG.'i 

(/. Sims 

iii. 483, 51.5 

V. Spark 

ii. 699 

V. Story 

i. 538 
ii. 311 

Eosctto V. Gurney ii. 297, 298, 374, 396 

Rosevelt v. Fulton ii. 784 

Ross, ex parte iii. 515 

V. Actire, The ii. 33C 

V. Braddhaw ii. 466 

V. City of Madison i. 139 

I". Green ii. 756 

V. Hill ii. 158 

V. Johnson ii. 143 

V. Knight ii. 7'i9 

r. Ross iii. 66 

t>. Sadgbeer ii. 731 

V. Tluvaite ii. 303 

V. Turner i. 2.'):i 

Ross's Ex'r v. McLauchlan's Adm'r i. 4.!7 

Rosso V. Bramsteed ii. 15(3 

Rossiter v. Chester ii. 201, 298 

V. Rossiter i. 62, 65 

V. Trafalgar Life A. A. i. 84 

Roswell II. Vaughan i. 574 

Rotch V. Eilig ii. 380 

(/. Hawes ii. 1:^7 

Roth V. Coivin i. 255 

Rothery v. Munnings iii. 93 

Rothscliild 0. Coriiey i. 261 

V. Currie i. 276 

Rothwell V. Humphreys i. 180 

Rouch u. The Great Western Ry. Co. 

iii. 479, 498, 502 
Rouse V. Ins. Co. ii. 410 

Rousset V. Ins. Co. ii. 355 

Routh (,-. Thompson i. 49; ii. 269, 35.1, 

358, 361 

Routledgo 0. Burrell ii. 352, 401 

V. Grant i. 497, 525; ii. 351 

V. Ramsay iii. 66 

Roux V. Salvador ii. 382, 385, 391 

Rjvtiia, The ii. 347 

Rover, The o. Stiles ii. 271 

Row L\ Dawson i. 224; iii. 2S4 

V. Pulver ii. i3, 25 

Rowan's Appeal iii. 406 

Rowan v. Kirkpatrick i. 122 ; iii. 46ii 

Rowe u. Bellascys iii. 140 

ti. Brig— ^^ ii. 316, 320 

V. Galliers iii. 492 

V. Hamilton i. 365 

V. Pickford i. 602 

V. Teed iii. 391 

V. Tipper i. 284 

V. Young i. 272 ; ii. 636 

Rowena, The * ii. 20S: 

Rowland v. Bull's Ex'rs iii. 134 

V. Lazarus iii. 298 

Rowlandson, fj-;)arte i. 161 

Rowley v. Bigelow i. 289, 598, 606 ; ii. 

290, 794 

V. Gihbs iii 106, 202, 203 

V. Stoddard i. 27, 28 

Rowning i\ Goodchild ii. 144 

Rowton, ex parte iii. 468, 470, 482, 495 

R'oy V. Beard ii. 589 

V. Willink iii. 401 

Royal Bank of Scotland v. Cutlibert 

iii. 452, 473 
Rovalton v. Tlie R. & W. Turnpike 

Co. iii. 187 

Roy.ll Stewart, The ii. 284 

Royce v. Barnes ii. 743 

Ruan V. Gardner ii. 362 

Ruclier v. Conyngham iii. 138 

Rucker v AUnut ii. 414 

u. Cammeyer iii. 12, 13 

V. Hannay iii, 62 

V. London Ass. Co. ii. 367 

Rucker's Adm'r v. Gilbert i. 400 

Ruckman v. Bryan ii. 756 

V. Cowell iii. 523 

I'. Merchant Ins. Co. ii. 277, 

384, 386 

V. Mott ii. 300 

V. Pitcher ii. 627, 628 

Rudder v. Price iii. 1 55 

Rudge V. Birch ii. 744 

Ruiling V. Smith ii. 569, 572, 598 

Riulston V. Yates ii. 692 

Ruff B. Bull iii. 94 

Ruffiu, ex parte i. 201, 213 

Rufford, ex parte iii. 512 

V. Bucknor ii. 303 

Ruggles V. General Ins. Co. ii. 403, 404 

V. Kceler i. 590, 591 ; iii. 96 

V. Patten i. 272 

Rumney v. Kcycs i. 302, 334 

Kuriiyon v. Montford i. 281 

lluniiel V. Keeler i. 314 

Rundle v. iloore i. 81 

Ruuquist f. Ditchell i. 57 ; ii. 288 

Runyan v. Caldwell ii, 125 

f. Nicliols i. 116 

Runyon v. Montford i. 278 

Rupart y. Dunn i. 384 

Rusby V. Scarlett i. 48, 52 

Rusli f. Baker iii. 469 

Rushforth r. Hadfield ii. 120, 541, 545 

Ruse ('. JIutual Ins. Co. ii. 480, 486 

Russel V. Asa R. Swift, The ii. 264 

a. Field ii. 726 

I". Russel iii. 280 

v. Union Ins. Co. ii. 363 

Russell V, Babcock ii. 6 

V. Bell iii. 483, 5id 

i;. Branham ii. 773 



Russell V. Brooks 
«. Buck 
c. Chu-k 
V. Coffin 

1. 345 
i. 444 

ii. 775 
ii. 504 

V. De Grand i. 458 ; ii. 358, 359 


V. Doty iii. 507, 508 

V. Failor i. 33 

V. Fillmore i. 570 

V. Hankey i. 85 

V. Lang-stuflfe i. 242, 26'J 

V. Livingston ii 167 

V. NicoU i. 528, 554, 562, 564 ; 

ii. 652 

V. Ormsbee ii. 650, 661 

V. Palmer i. 49.8; iii. 190 

V. Pellegrini ii. 709, 710 

V. Perkins ii. 519 

V. Phillips i. 267 

V. Pyland ii. 757 

V. Siiipwith i. 398 

V. Slade iii. 36 

V. Wiggin i. 267 

V. Woodward iii. 426 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 405 

Rust V. Gott ii. 756 

V. Larue ii. 766 

V. Nottidge ii. 45 

Kuston V. Duinvoody ii. 710, 711 

Rutgers V. Hunter i. 500 

u. Lucct ii. 45, 101 

Rutherford v. RufF i. 384 ; iii. 417 

Rutland Bank t>. Buck i. 259 

Railroad Co. v. Cole i. 62 

& Burlington R. R. Co. v. 

Crocker ii. 503 

Rutter V. Blake i. 592 

Ryall y. Rolle ii. 281 ; iii. 471, 487 

Ryan v. Cumb. Valley R. R. Co. ii. 43 

d. Hall ii. 552 

V. Rand ii. 555 

V. Sans i. 48, 71, 363 

V. Trustees ii. 5 

Ryberg v. Snell i. 289, 607 ; iii. 488 

Ryder, in re i. 306, 307, 309 

u. Hathaway iii. 199 

V. Hulse i. 344 

V. Thayer iii. 192 

Ryerss v. Farwell ii. 797 

Ryland v. Smith iii. 481 

Ryle V. Brown iii. 361 

Ryram v. Hunter i. 271 

Saccnm v. Norton ii. 711 

Sackett v. Andross iii. 430, 433 

V. Johnson ii. 52 

Saddington v. Kinsman i. 342 ; iii. 481 

Sadler v. Evans i. 79 

V. Henlock " i. 102 

Sadler v. Hoblis i. 30 

c. Leigh iii. 504 

V. Xi.Kon i. 32, 35, 1C4 

I'. Robins ii. 607 

Sadlers Ins Co. u. Badcock ii. 355, 450 

Sadlier v. Bi.iigs i. 500 

Bafford r. .Stevens ii. 699 

Sage V. M'Guire iii. 392 

V. Wilcox i. 7, 442 ; ii. 6; iii. 16 

Sageman v. Brundywine, The ii. 339 

Sager v. Portsmouih &c. R. R. Co. 

ii. 163, 237, 240, 247 

Sainsbury v. Jones i. 492 ; iii. 403 

u. M.itthcws iii. 31, 32 

V. Parkinson i. 241 

St. Alban Steamboat Co. u. Wil- 

kins ii. 36, 659 

St. George v. Wake i. 370 

St. Jago Do Cuba ii. 260, 262, 339 

St. John V. Am. Ins. Co. ii. 448, 449, 


V. Benedict iii. 417 

V. Diffi^ndorf iii. 269 

V. Garrow iii. 85 

V. Purdy ii. 625 

V. St. John i. 357 

V. Van Santvoord ii. 216 

St. Lawrence, Tlio ii. 264 

St. Louis Ins. Co. v. Glascow ii. 449 

St. Mary's Church, Case of i. 142 

Sainter v. Ferguson ii. 750; iii. 157, 164, 

Salem Bank v. Gloucester Bank i. 43 ; ii. 


Salisbury, in re i. 134 

V. H.ntchcr iii. 381, 410 

(--. M.usbaU i. 501, 589 

v. Stainer i. 585 

Salkeld, ex parte iii. 460 

Sallery v. Prindle i. 267 

Salmon v. Uavis i. 186 

V. Smith i. 508 

r. Wooton ii. 726 

Falls Manuf. Co. v. God- 

dard iii. 14 

V. Tangier 

ii. 195, 295 
Saloucci V. Johnson ii. 398 

Salte V. Field i. 59, 490 

Slater v. Burt i. 276, 283 ; ii. 649, 666 
V. Kidley ii. 790 

Saltmarsh v. Planters & Merchants 

Bank iii. 144 

V. Tuthill i. 252 ; ii. 759, 765 

Saltoun V. Houstoun ii. 511 

Saltus V. Everett ii. 210 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 297, 384 

Salvador v. Hopkins ii. 411 

Samon's Case ii. 692, 693 

Sampayo v. Salter ii. 294, 299 

Samjjson v. Clark iii. 524 

u. Easterby ii. S' ' 



Sampson v. Pattison 
V. Smith 

iii. 421 

Sarratt v. Austin 

in. 483 

ii. 345 

Sarter v. Gordon 

iii. 37 1 

Sams V. Stockton 

i. 297 

Sasportas v. Jennings 
Sasscer v. Farmers Bank 

i. 394 

Samms «. Stewart 

ii. 166 

i. 283 

Samson v. Thornton 

i. 243 

Satterlee v. Frazer 

ii. 766 

Sam Slick, The 

ii. 263 

V. Groat 

ii. 166 

Samuel, The 



V. Matherson 

iii. 552 

0. Uoj-al Ex. Ass 


ii. 367 

Sauerwein v. Bruimer 

iii. 117 

Book, in re 

i. 314 

Saul !'. His Creditors ii. 


574, 576 

San Bernarilo, The 

ii. 318 

Saunders v. Frost 

ii. 642 

Sanborn v. Fireman's Ins. 


ii. 3.i0 

V. Graham 

ii. 641 

u. French 

i. 436 

li. Hatterman 

ii. 773 

V. Little 


227, 230 

V. Johnson 

i. 22 

Sander v. Sander 

iii. 461 

V. Topp 

iii. 44 

Sanders v. Branch Bank 

ii. 620 

u. Wakefield i. 


ii. 15, 16 

u. FiUcy 

i. 468 

V. Williams iii. 


455, 481 

V. Pope 

iii. 372 

Saunderson v. GrcL'g 

iii. 502 

V. Spencer 

ii. 149 

V. Griffiths 

i. 49 

Sanderson v. BcU 

ii. 615 

; iii. 250 

v. Jackson 

iii. 4 

, 7, 8, 17 

V. Bowes 

i. 272 

V. Judge 

i. 273 

u. Bradford 

iii. 455 

u. Marr 



0. Busher 

ii. 288 

V. Piper 

ii. 563 

I/. Cockermouth & W. Ry. 

V. Rowles 

iii. 460 



355, 372 

Saurez v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co 


385, 387 

V. M'CuUom 

ii. 354 

Savage v. Aldrcn 

i. 252 

V Milton Stage Co. 

i. 195 

«. Best 

iii. 514 

u. Simonds 

ii. 354 

r. Carroll 


355, 393 

Sandham, ex parte 

i. 191 

V. Rix 


10, 65, 69 

Sandilands i\ Marsh 


184, 191 

Savage JIan. Co. t> Armstr 


i. 534 

Sandiman v. Breach 


.502, 758 

Savary v. Clements 

ii. 346 

Sands v. Church 

iii. 122 

V. Goe 


647, 649 

V. Lyon 

ii. 649, 

664, 666 

Savery v. Spcncc 

iii. 37--r 

t. Matthews 

i. 245 

SaviUe V. Robertson 


173, 17) 

V. Taylor 

i. 534 

; iii. 209 

Savings Bank v. Bates 

i. 276 

Sanford v. Bulkley 

ii. 645 

r. Ela 

ii. 27 

V. Dodd 

i. 462 

Savory v. Stocking 

iii. 524 

V. Handy 

ii. 778 

Savoury v. Chapman 

ii. 614 

V. Hayes 

iii. 77 

Savoye v. Marsh 

iii. 442 

V. Mechanics Ins. 

Co. ii. 

421, 425 

Saward v. Austey 

ii. 50<! 

V. Mickles 


260, 261 

Sawi'ey v. Rumney 

ii. 55 I 

V. Morton 

i. 255 

Sawteil V. Loudon 

iii. 32,". 

V. Raikes 

ii. 549 

V. Sawteil 

ii. 60) 

V. Trust Fire Ins 


ii. 420 

Sawtelle v. Rollins 

iii. 4711 

Sanger v. Eastwood 

i. 570 

Sawyer v. Coasters Ins. Co. 


397, 402, 

San Jose Indiimo, The 

i. 200 

404, 405 

Sansom v. Ball 

ii. 327 

V. Cutting 

i. 347 

V. Rliodes 

ii. 660 

V. Fislier i. 521, 538; ii. 207 

Sappho, The 

ii. 308 

v. Hammatt 


503, 535 

Sapsford v. Fletcher 

ii. 735 

u. Hoovey 

i. 255 

Sarah Ann, The 

i. 7 

8; ii. 277 

V. Joslin 

i. 602 

Starr, The 

ii. 261 

V. Maine Ins. Co. 

ii. 278 

Saratoga R. R. v. Row 

ii. 781 

V. Mclntyre 

iii. 232 



343, 344 

V. Patterson 

ii. 26 

Sard V. Rhodes 

ii. 682 

V. Tappan 

ii. 631 

Sargeant v. Butts 

ii. 757 

y. Twiss 

i. 512 

Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co. iii. 

105, 195, 

Say V. Barwick 

iii. 417 

198, 206 

Saver v. Bennet 

i. 72, 199 

V. Gile 


537, 538 

u. Chayter 

i. 11 

V. Graham 

ii. 643 

u. Wagstaff 

ii. 684 

V. Howe 

iii. 420 

Sayre v. Flournoy 

i. 341 

V. Southgate 

i. 256 

Sayward v. Steyens 


. 294, 327 

Sari II. BourdiUon 

iii. 8 

Scale V. FothergiU 

u. 697 



Scales !'. Anderson i. 517 

Scampellini u.'Atehesou i. 343 

Scimlan v. Wright ii. 562 

Scarborough v. Lyrus ii. 280 

V. Reynolds i. 117 ; ii. 689 

Scarfe v. Morgan ii. 758, 765 ; iii. 245, 251 

Scarmun v, Castell ii. 41 

Scliemerhorn 0. Vanderheydea i. 429 

Schermeriiorn v. Scliermerhorn ii. 735 

Schietfelin v. Carpenter ii. 798 ; iii. 233 

t'. N. Y. Ins. Co. ii. 298, 396 

u. Stewart i. 122, 123; iii. 


Schinimelpennich v. Bayard i. 48, 61 

Schley v. Lyon iii. 198, 202 

Schlizzi V. Derry ii. 305 

Schmaling, er /)ar(c iii. 508 

Schmalz v. Avery i. 65 

Schmidt V. Blood ii. 125, 143 

V. Livingston i. 492 

Schneider v. Cochrane i. 287 

V. Foster i. 534 

u. Heath i. 61, 590 ; ii. 273 

u. Norris iii. 8, 9 

V. Schiffinan i. 243, 245 

Schofield v. Corbett ii. 738 

Scholefield v. Eichelberger i. 198, 200, 

Scholey v. Goodman i. 359 

Schondler v. Wace iii. 480 

School Dist. !>. Bragdon i. 316 

Schoolc V. Noble ii. 736 

Schoonover v. Itowe iii. 1 69 

Schopman v. B. & W. R. R. Co. ii. 173, 


Schreger v. Garden ii. 639 

Schroeppcl v. Corning iii. 128 

Schroyer v. Lynch ii. 144, 145 

Schuyler v. Hoyle i. 342 

u. Euss i. 576, 590 

V. Van Der Veer ii. 692 

Scioto, The ii. 308, 309 

Schuylliill Nav. Co. v. Moore ii. 501 

Schwartz u. U. S. Ins. Co. ii. 360 

Scofield V. Day ii. 583 

Scorell V. Boxall iii. 32, 33 

Scott V. Alexander i. 280 

u. Avery ii. 708, 709 

u. Barnes ii. 691 

V. Bourdillion ii. 536 

V. Buchanan i. 296, 326 

V. Colmesnil i. 168, 169 

V. Crane ii. 94 

V. Fisher ii- 630 

V. Franklin iii. 264 

V. Godwin i. 14, 23 

V. Haddock iii. 95 

V. Irving ii. 541, 544 

V. James i. 341 

V, Jester iii. 268 

ti. Jones iii. 287 

V. Lewis iii. 120 

Scott V. Libbey 
V. Lifford 
n. Lloyd 
V. Miller 
V. Nesbit 
V. Nichols 
V. Pettit 

ii. 295, 305 
i. 281 
iii. 108, 139, 140 
ii. 333 
ii. 747; iii. 126 
iii. 91 
i. 604 

V. Plymouth, The ii. 271 
V. Porcher i. 219, 221; iii. 285 
V- Ray ii. 631 
V. Rivers ii. 735 
V. Scholey iii. 484 
V. Scott i. 575 ; ii. 72 
V. Shepherd iii. 182 
V, Sherman iii, 285 
V. Surman iii. 468, 482 
V. The Eastern Counties Rail- 
way Co. iii. 44 
V. Thompson ii. 412 
u. Trent ii. 615 
V. Williams i. 405 
Scotthom v. South Staffordshire R. 

R. Co. . ii. 200,217, 218 

Scottin V. Stanley ' ii. 271 

Scottish Mar. Ins. Co. v. Turner ii. 386 

Scouton V. Eislord i. 381, 382 

Scovillc II. Griffith ii. 185 

Scrace v. Whittington i. 117 

Scranton i\ Baxter ii. 109 

Screws v. lioach i. 523 

Scribner v. Fisher iii. 441 

Scrimshiro v. Aldcrton iii. 482 

V. Scrimshire ii. 596, 598 

Scripture v. Lowell Ins. Co. ii. 445, 446 

Scruggs V. Gass i. 265 ; ii. 622 

Scrngham v. Carter i. 208 ; iii. 204 

Scudder v. Andrews i. 465 

u. Balkam ii. 262 

V. Bradford ii. 324, 328 

V. Woodbridge i. 408 

Scull ;;. Briddle ii. 277 

Scully V. Scully iii. 406 

Scurry v. Freeman iii. 124, 125 

Seaborne v. Blackston ii. 615 

V. Maddy i. 300 

Seabuiy v. Hungerford i. 243 

Seacord v. Burling i. 249 

V. Miller i. 279 

Seagood v. Meale ii. 72; iii. 13, 30 

Seagraves v. City of Alton i. 139 

Seaman, ex parte 




V. Fonercau 

i. 73 

; ii. 


V. Vawdrey 



Seamans v. Loring 



Seainore v. Harlan 



Sea Renter, The 



Searle v. Xieeves 




V. Scovell 



Sears v. The City of Boston ii. 579, 58C, 

581 ; iii. 406 

V. Brink iii. 16 

II. Lyons iii. 1 7il 



Sears v. Wills ii. 287, 293 

V. Wingate ii. 290 

Se^irsbury T. Co. v. Cutler ii. 799 

Seaton v. Benedict i. 347, 348, S.";! ; I 

ii. a38 i 

V. Booth i. 25, 495 ' 

V. Henson i. 27 | 

u. Mapp iii. 383 j 

u. Tlie Second Municipality I 
iii. 185 

Seaver r. Coburn i. 64 

a. Morse ii. 38, 41 I 

v. Phelps i. 384 j 

Seawell v. Henry ii. ('■Si 

Secoms V. Edwards ii. 497 

Seddon v. Senate ii. 494 j 

V. Tutop ii. 699 

Sedgworth c. Overend ii. 616 

Seeley v. Bisbee i. 271 

(J. Bishop ii. 534 

V. En<,'cU i. 290 

Seers v. Fowler ii. 529, 530 I 

V. Turner ii. 725, 726 ] 

Segar v. Edwards i. 81 [ 

Segura v. Keed ii. 296 ' 

Seidcnlierder i,-. Charles i. 458 

Seignior v. Wolmcr's Case i. 60 

ScL-ias V. Woods i. 577, 580, Jo2 1 

Selby r. Eden i. 272 
V. Hntchinson 
V. Selliy 
Selden v. Cushman 

0. Hendrickson 
Sclfridge v. Gill 

Severn v. Clerke 

ii. 511 

Seville v. Chretien 

i. 399 

Sewull V. Allen 

ii. 174 

V. Eiteh 

iii. 55, 56 

u. Henry 

ii. 503 

Selkrig r. Davies i. 151 

Selleck V. French 
Sellen V. Norman 
Seller v. Work 
Sellers v. Dugan 
Sellick V. Addains 
Selser v. Brock 
Sehvay v. Fogg 

v. HoUoway 
Selwood V. Mildmay 
Scrapie !!. Cornewall 
Seneca County Bank v, Neass 

ii. 523 

iii. 5, J77 

iii. 175 

ii. 283 

iii. 507 

iii. 452, 473 

iii. 102, 103 

ii. 41, 48 

ii. 99 

ii. 760 

ii. 701 

ii. 8 

ii. 57, 781 

ii. ISO 

ii. 550 

iii. 107 

i. 281 

u. Si 



rn iii. 107 

Senior v. Armytage i. 505 

510; ii. 533, 


i. 385 

Sentance v. Poole 

Sergeson A Sealey 

i. 387 

Servante v. .James 

i. 13, 15, 25 

Sessions v. Moseley 

i. 237 

i;. Reynolds 

ii. 767 

V. Richmond 

iii. 134, 160 

Setou V. Del. Ins. Co. 

ii. 388 

V. Low 

ii. 402 

V. Slade iii. 9, 357, 409 

Settle V. St. Louis Ins. Co. 

ii. 412 

Seventh Ward Bank v. Han 

■ick 1. 280 

Severance v. Kimball 

i. 392 

Hull, The, of a Xew Ship ii. 26i 
0. Jones iii. 2.^7 
f. Sparrow ii. 713 
V. U. S. Ins. Co, ii 387 
Sexton V. Montgomery Ins. Co. ii. 422, 
432, 437, 459 
V. Pike ii. 56 
V. Wlieaton i. 238, 370 
Seyds v. Hay iii. 268 
Seymour v. Brown ii. 133, 136 
V. Uarruw ii. 625 
V. Davis iii. 44 
V. Dehmcey iii. 352, 361 
!'. Delancy i. 384, 492 
V. Gartside li. 61 
V. Marvin iii. 134 
V. Mintnrii ii. 618 
u. Sexton ■ ii. 632 
1'. Strong iii. 108 
Shackel v. Rosier i. 4o5, 458 
Shackelford u. Handley ii. 7b5 
[.. Mon-iss iii. 144, 146 
Shackleton v. SutcUfi'e iii. 400 
Shaeffer c. Slcado ii. 77» 
V. Lee iii. 187 
Shaffer v. McMakin iii. 514 
Shaf her r. The State ii. 81 
Shakeshaft, ex parte iii. 519 
Shannon v. Comstock iii. 194, 232 
Shapk-y v. Bellows ii. 736 
I'. Tappau ii. 366 
Sh.arington v. Stratton i. 354 
Sharp V. Brice iii. 175 
V. Coiiklin i. 25 
V. Gihlis ii. 400 
V. Grey ii. 227 
r. Nowell ii. 697 
V. Taylor ii. 571 ; iii. 418 
V. Tecse i. 458 
V. Wright iii. 357 
Shai'pe, ex parte iii. 511 
V. Kcllev ii. 797 
V. Roahde iii. 474, 479 
Sharpley v. Hurrel ii. 281 ; iii. 138 
Sharrod v. Lond. sjc X. Western Rail- 
way Co. i. 103 
Shaughnessy t). Fogg i. 114 
Shaw, ex parte "iii. 270, 463, 464, 465 
V. Allen iii. 69 
V. Arden i. 99, 116 
V. Badger ii. 658 
u. Batley in. 502 
r. Berry i. 132; ii. 146 
1/. Boyd i. 321 
V. Finney iii. 12 
V. Fisher i. 492 ; iii. 370 
V. Gookin ii. 738 



Shaw V. Hollniid 

iii. 206 

V. Jakemau 

iii. 515 

V. Kay 

i. 504 

V. Leavitt 

ii. 554, 555 

i;. Loiul 

i. 33 

V. M'Comhs 

ii. 757 

V. Mitchell 

iii. 482, 499 

i). Nudd i. 47, 111 ; iii. 206 

V. Picton ii. 630 

V. Pnitt i. 27, 187 ; ii. 632 

V. llevd i. 270 

V. Robberds ii. 426, 427, 449 

V. Robbins iii. 438, 440 

V. Shaw iii. 57 

V, Sherwood i. 31 

V. Stone i. 94 

V, Thaekray iii. 416 

V. Turnpike Co. ii. 679 

V. Wliite iii. 223 

V. Wilkins iii. 226 

V. York & N. M. Ry. Co. ii. 248 

Shawhan v. Wherritt iii. 514 

Shearer v. Handy ii. 690, 691 

Shearman v. Akins i. 359 

Shed V. Brett i. 274, 283 

V. Pierce i. 28 

Shedd V. Wilson i. 211 

Shce V. Hale i. 506 ; iii. 493 

Sheehy v. Mandeville i. 12; ii. 624 

Sheerman v. Thompson i. 455 

Sheffield v. Page ii. 344 

Sheftall V. Clay iii. 62 

Shelby v. Guy ii. 592 ; iii. 99 

Sheldon v. Robinson ii. 168 

Sheldon v. Benham i. 283 ; ii. 556 

V. Capron i. 494 

V. Conn. Ins. Co. ii. 487 

V. Cox i. 521 

V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. ii. 422, 


V. Kendall i. 54 ; ii. 745 

V. Newton i. 316 

Shelley v. Wright ii. 790 

Shelling v. Farmer ii. 699 

Shelton u. Gill iii. 126 

V. Homer i. 88 

V. Livius i. 494 

^. Pendleton i. 348, 362, 363 

V. Sherfey i. 290 

V. Springett i. 302, 305, 311 

V. Tiffin ii. 579 

V. Walker iii. 463, 465 

Shegard v. Hawley i. 188, 282 

0. Ward ii. 615 

Shepard v. Hall iii. 288 

V. Watrous i. 393 

Shepherd, ar pnrie iii. 512 

V. Bevin iii. 359, 361, 363 

V. Chamberlin i. 274 

V. Chewter ii. 416 

V. Hampton iii. 205 

V. Johnson iii. 198, 205 

TOL. I. K 

Shepherd u. Kain i. 582, 591 ; ii. 273 

V. Mackoul i. 362, 363 

V. Percy i. 86 

V. Pybus i. 587 ; ii, 273 

V. Sawyer ii. 755, 756 

V. Taylor ii. 292 

V. Temple i. 581 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 451 

Shepley v. Davis i. 528 

V. Waterhouse iii. 81 

Sheppard c. Doolan iii. 368, 380 

V. Stites ii. 69:; 

Shcppards o. Turpin iii. 4:i6 

Sherburne v. Shaw iii. 14 

Sheriff' «. Potts ii. 414 

Sherman v. Ballon ii. 735 

V. Barnard i. 456 

V. Champlain Trans. Co. i. 575; 

ii. 34, 40 ; iii. 38 

V. Clark i. 281 

y. Dutch i. 518 

V. Fair ii. 452 

V. Rochester & Syracuse 

R. R. ii. 43 

V. Wakeman iii. 66 

V. Withers iii. 89 

Sherratt v. Bentley ii. 514 

SherriU v. Hopkins iii. 442, 450 

Shersby v. Hibbert ii. 34s 

Sherwood v. Gen. Mut. Ins. Co. ii. 377 

V. Marwick i. 186 

V. Robins i. 540 

V. Sutton iii. 99 

Shields V. Fuller i. 20I 

V. Pettee i. 554, 555, 558, 594 ; 

iii. 208 

V. Yonge ii. 43 

Shiells V. Blackbume i. 85; ii. 100, 

Shiff V. La. State Ins. Co. ii. 416 

Shiffner v. Gordon ii. 74(1 

Shilcock V. Passman i. 114 

Shillibeer ;;. Glyn i. 447 ; ii. 101 

Shilling V. Accidental Death Ins. Co. 

ii. 479 

Shindler v. Houston iii. 41, 44 

Shipman v. Horton i. 294, 332 

Shippey v. Derrison iii. 4 

V. Eastwood ii. 759, 764 

V. Henderson i. 381, 382 

Shipton V. Casson ii. 524, 658 

u. Thornton ii. 297, 389 

Shirley v. Shirley iii. 9, 278 

V. Stratton iii. 414 

Shirtz V. Shirtz iii. 2:!3 

Shitler v. Bremer iii. 69 

Shitz V. Dieffenbach iii. 477 

Shobery. Hauser iii. 108, 118 

Shoemaker v. Benedict iii, 82 

V. Keeley iii. 497, 509 

Shook V. State ii. 28 

Shore v. Bentall ii. 374 



Shore v, Lucas i. 596 

V. Wilson ii. 500, 558, 560, 565 

Shorey v. Rcnnell ii. 345, 346 

Short V. McCarthy iii. 92 

V. New Orleans i. '220 

V. Skipwith i. 86, 89 

V. Stone ii. 65, 67, 666, 667, 675 

i. 404 

iii. 536, 540 

iii. 16 

i. 187 

iii. 398 

iii. 201 

ii. 775 

Lon. & 

Shorter v. Boswell 

V. Smith 
Shortrede v. Check 
Shotwell V. Miller 
V. Murray 
V. Wendover 
Shrewsbury v. Blount 

& B. Rv. Co. 
N. W. Ry. Co. 
Shubrick n. Salmond 
Shuck V. Wight 
Shultz V. Elliott 

V. Ohio Ins. Co. 
Shumway v. Reed 

V. Stillman 
Shurlds V. Tilson 
Shute V. Dorr 

a. Taylor 
Shutford V. "Borough 
Sihbald v. Hill 
Sibley v. Aldrich 

V. Fisher 

V. Hayward 

V. Holdeu 

V. Lumbert 

V. McAllaster 
Sibly V. Tutt 
Siboni v. Kirkman 
Sibree v. Tripp 
Sice V. Cunningham 
Sickles V. Mather 

V. Pattison 
Sicklemore v. Thistleton 
Sidaways v. Todd 
Siddall V. Rawcliff 

iii. 418 

i. 428 

iii. 117 

i. 507 

ii 396 

ii. 624 

ii. 609 

i. 169 

iii. 36 

iii. 158, 162 

iii. 90 

ii. 402, 405 

ii. 149 

ii. 723 

iii. 237 

ii. 503 

iii. 78 

i. 32 

i. 288 

ii. 532 

ii. 619 

i. 269 

iii. 73 

ii. 36, 518, 522 

ii. 501 

ii. 142 

ii. 620 

i. 131 ; 
i. 222; 

Sidenham and Worlington'a Case i. 6 
Sidwell V. Evans 
V. Mason 
Siebert v. Spooner 

Sievewriglit v. Archibald 

Siffken v. Wrav 
Siffkin (.. Walker 
Sigourney r. Drury 
r. Lloyd 
V. Munn 
Sikcs V. Johnson 
Sill ". Worswick 
Sillem V. Thornton 
Sillick V. Booth 
Silsbce V. Ingalls 

, 442, 443 

iii. 69 

iii. 484 

i. 543, 544, 


i. 600 

i. 173 

iii. 81, 82 

i. 2.)2 

i. 149, 202 

i. 316 

iii. 452, 435 

422, 424, 427 

ii. 485 

in. 19 

Silsbury v. McCoon ii. 136 ; iii. 200, 201 
Silva V. Low ii. 407, 413 

Silver Lake Bank r. Harding ii. 613 

Silveruail v. Cole i. 437^ 442 



Silvis V. Ely 

Simerson u. Branch Bank 
Sininiiiis c. Parker 
Simmonds v. Swaine 
Simmons v. Simmons 

V. Swift 
Simms V. Marryatt i 

u. Norris 
Simon V. Miller 
V. Motives 
V. Lloyd 
Simond v. Boydell 
V. Bruddon 
Simonds v. Catlin 

V. Hodgson 
u. Strong 
0. Union Ins. Co. 
V. White 
Simons v. G. W. Ry. Co. 
V. Johnson 
V. Walter 
Simpson, ex parte 
V. Bloss 

V. Charleston Ins. 
u. CUayton 
tj. Fullenwider 
V. Hand 
V. Hanley 
V. Hart 
V, Hawkins 
Simpson v. Henderson 
V. Ingham 
V. NichoUs 
V. Potts 
u. Robertson 
V. Sadd 
V. Stackhouse 
V. Turney 
o. Vaughn 
V. Warren 
Sims V. Bond i. 62 

V. Brittain 
V. Brutton 
V. Chance 
y. Clarke 
0. Gondelock 
V. Gurney 
V. Harris 
V. Howard 
V. Hutchins 
V. Sims 

V. Willing i. 173, 174, 176 
Simson V. Cooke 
V. Jones 
Sinard v. Patterson 
Sinclair, in re 

V. Bank of S. Car. 

V. Bowles 

V. Jackson 

I'. Pearson i, 

V. Richardson 

V. Tarbox 

i. 441 

i. 630 

i. 404 

ii. f 94, 698 

ii. 72 

i. 525 

ii. 376 

i. 311 

ii. 154 

iii. 11, 53 

ii. 684 

ii. 359 

i. 566 

in. 12 

ii. 282, 283 

i. 169, 170 

ii. 390 

ii. 324, 332 

ii. 238 

ii. 502, 714 

iii. 103 

iii. 506 

ii. 746 

ii. 380 

i. 25 

iii. 120 

ii. 309 

ii. 735 

ii. 735 

i. 496 

ii. 553, 560 

ii. 631, 633 

ii. 765 

i. 591 

i. 298 

iii. 379 

ii. 723 

i. 284 


iii. 124 

ii. 743, 795 

ii. 268 

i. 181, 191 

ii. 124 

ii. 622 

iii. 91 

ii. 324, 328 

i. 23 

ii. 295 

iii. 57 

i. 235 

iii. 103 

ii. 20, 633 

i. 452 

ii. 685 

ii. 335 

iii. 92 

ii. 522, 524 

ii. 787 

102; ii. 125 

ii. U 

iU. 173 



Singer v. McCormick 

Singleton i. Hilliard 
V. Kennedy 
V, Lewis 

Sinnot v. Davenport 

Siordct V. Hall 

ii. 541 

iil. 174 

iii. 152 

ii. 266, 279 

ii. 162 

Sir Wollimton Dixie's Case iii. 125 

Siter V. Morrs ii. 442 

Sivowright v. Archibald i. 477 ; iii. 13 

V. Richiudson i. 86 

Skeate v. Beale i. 394, 4.36 

Skeels v. Cliiekering ii. 694 

Skolton V. Brewster ii. 10 

Skidmoro c. Dcsdoity ii. 374, 376 

Skillings v. Coolidge ii. 698 

Skingly, in re i. 504 

Skinner's Appeal i. 343 

Skinner v. Dayton i. 110, 196 

V. Gunn i. 60 
V. London, Brighton, & South- 
coast Railway Co. ii. 126, 224 

V. M'Douall iii. 390 

V. Somes i. 227, 228 

i;. Stocks i. 62 

f. Upshaw ii. 207 

V. Western Ins. Co. ii. 388 

Skip, ex parte iii. 126, 508 

V. E. C. R'y Co. ii. 43 

Skrine v. Hope, The ii. 267 

Slack r. Brown ii. 638 

Slackhouse i;. O'Hara i. 118 

Slade V. Arnold ii. 760 

Slaney, in re iii. 507 

Slater, ex parte i. 1 87 

0. Lawson iii. 81 

V. Magraw i. 11 ; ii. 533 

Slatterie v. Pooley ii. 795 

Slaughter v. Green ii. 133 

!). McRae iii. 21 1 

Slave Grace, The i. 418 

Slaymaker v. Irwin i. 477 

Sleat V. Fagg ' ii. 242, 252 

Sleech v. Thorington i. 343 

Sleght !'. Hartshorne ii. 536 

Slim V. Northern Ry. Co. ii. 237 
Slingerland v. Morse ii. 94, 653, 655 ; iii. 25 

Slingsliy's Case i. 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22 

Slipper'w. Stidstone iii. 515 

Sloan V. Gibson i. 430 

u. R. F. &. M. Co. ii. 798 

V. Sommers iii. 116 

Sloane o. Cadogau iii. 360 

V. Moore i. 197 

Slocombe v. Glubb i. 332 

Slociun V. Despard ii. 533 

V. Faircliild ii- 248 

V. Hooker i. 329 

Slocumb V. Holmes iii. 89 

Sloman v. Walter iii. 16* 

Sloop Mary iii. 138 

Sloper V. Fish iii. 479 

Slosson V. Duff iii. 109 

Slubey v. Heyward i. 527, 601 ; iii. 44 

Sluby V. Champlin iii. 62 

Slumway v. Cooper i. 135 

Slvti. Edgley i. 103 

Slyhoof I). Flitcraft ii. 726 

Small V. Atwood i. 579 

V. Browder i. 230 

V. Currie ii. 18 

II. Gibson ii. 407, 408, 410 

V. Moates ii. 297 

V. Owings iii. 356, 390, 392 

a. Dudley iii. 426, 428 

I). Quincy ii. 657 

Smallpiece v. Dawes i. 351 

Smart v. Harding iii. 34 

V. Nokes iii. 344 

V. Sandars i. 70, 72, 94 

Smedburg v. More iii. 386 

Smedes v. Bank of Utica i. 85 ; ii. 103 . 

Smethurst v. Woolston iii. 197, 206 ' 

Smilax, The ii, 281 

Smiley v. Bell i. 225 

Smith, ex parte i. 199 ; iii. 457, 512 

in re i. 208, 209 

V. Algar i. 441, 443 

V. Allen i. 431 

V. Arnold iii. 14 

t;. Atlantic M. F. Ins. Co. ii. 726, 


V. Babcock ii. 786 

V. Barker i. 205 

V, Barrow i. 163 

II. Bartholemew i. 437 ; ii. 686 

V. Bates ii. 415 

V. Bean ii. 764 

V. Bell ii. 394 

V. Berry i. 226 ; iii. 206 

!i. Bickmore ii. 627, 747 

V. Birmingham Gas Co. i. 138 

u. Bishop iii. 99 

V. Bond's Heirs iii. 98 

V. Bowditch Ins. Co. ii. 421, 432 

V. Bowles i. 600 

V. Braine i. 242, 2.i2 

V. Brown ii. 55.5, 619, 687, 688 ; 

iii. 437, 450 

V. Bruning ii. 74 

V. Brush iii. 110 

V. Bryan iii. 32 

V. Buchanan iii. 442, 452 

V. Burnham i. 156, 167 

V. Campbell iii. 426 

V. Chester i. 264 

V. Clark i. 252 

V. Clarke ii. 134 

V. Coffin iii. 469, 477, 479 

V. Columbia Ins. Co. ii. 384, 433, 


V. Condry i. 86 ; iii. 183 

V. Cong. Meet. House in Lowell 

ii. 524 
V. Craven i. 173 



Smith u. 

Creole, The 

ii. 349 


ii. 719, 724 


ii. 14 


i. 78 ; ii. 295, 335 


iii. 7.3, 89 


ii. 15:i, 15G 


ii. 691 

De Silva 

ii. 270 

De Witt 

i. 258 


iii. 158 


iii. 206, 217 


i. 189, 204 

Empire Ins. Co. ii. 437 

Estate of Steele ii. 26 


i. 321 


i. 609 


i. 279 


iii. 77 


i. 538 


iii. 92 


ii. 504 


i. 298 

Godfrey i 

. 456 ; ii. 568, 570 


iii. 467, 470, 490 


iii. 245 


ii. 283 


i. 497 


iii. 194, 207 


ii. 660 


ii. 798 

Haverhill Ins. 

Co. ii. 461 


ii. 656 


ii. 34, 41 


ii. 590 ; iii. 436 


i. 530 


iii. 277 


iii. 94 


i. 253, 255 

Hod son 

i. 51, 52; iii. 483 


ii. 242 


i. 782 


i. 26 


ii. 56 

Ins. Co. 

ii. 440 


i. 150 


ii. 616; iii. 468 


ii. 559 


ii. 620; iii. 12 


u. 691, 699 


i. 328 


ii. 41 


i. 237 


ii. 485 


i. 257 ; iii 495 


i. 85, 86 


ii. 268 


ii. 606 


i. 280, 283 


ii. 632 


ii. 646, 653 


ii. 735 


i. 521, 538 

Smith V. Manufacturers Ins. Co. 

u. Marral)le 
V. Marsack 
v. Jlawliood 
V. Mayo 
V. Mi'Clure 
V. MrGu'.van 
u. Mead 

1. 459 

u. 383 


i. 589 

i. 264 

; ii. 7.53 

i24, .'igg 

i. 274 

■19, 721 

ii. 570 

I,. Mechanics & Traders Bank i. 254 
V. Mrrecr i. 262, 264 

V. MiUes iii. 469, 497 

V. MitclicU ii. 775 

u. Montgomery ii. 4 

V. Moore i. 570 

V. JIullett i. 282 

V. Nashua & Lowell H. R. Co. 

ii. 189, 200 
V. New York Cent. 11. R. Co. 

ii. 237 
r. New York & Harlem R. R. 


ii. 248 



ii. 606 




609, 612 



iii. 298 




135, 136 
ii. 350 



ii. 503 
iii. 439 


Pckin, The 

ii. 339 


Pliiladelphia Bank 

i. 248 



i. 275 



iii. 358 




470, 49.) 
i. 346 



ii. 3-34 



i. 12 


Pioprietors, &c. 

i. 1.39 






508, 516 
i. 395 
i. 5S5 



iii. 193 




ii. .391 
ii. 657 


Saratoga Co. ] 

ns. Co. ii 




ii. 794 



iii. 460 



ii. 169 



i. 289 



ii. 160 
ii. 70 




129, 130 



i. 80 


Smith i. 135, 



; ii. 605, 

625, 650, 



iii. 163, 




443, 455 


Sparrow i 


; ii. 

758, 764 


SpinoUa ii. 



; iii. 436 


Spooner i. 385 



; iii. 287 




. 71,716 



i. 186 



iii. 224 



Smith V. Sullivan i. 348 

ji. Surman i. 531 ; iii. 6, 32, S3, 

45, 54 

V. Swift ii. 348 

V. Taleott i. 21 

i^. Tadton i. 152, 155 

I). Thompson i. 115 

I'. Thoiu iii. 66 

11. Tracy ii. 56 

V. Turner iii. 557 

V. Underdunck ■ iii. 393 

II. Van Loan i. 258 

V. Ware i. 434 

V. Watson i. 148 

V. Weed i. 444 

<;. Westmoreland iii. 76 

V. Whiting i. 132, 284 

V. Wigley ii. 633 

V. Wilcox ii. 760 

V. Williams i. 589 

V. Wilson ii. 539. 547 

V. Winter i. 194; ii. 25 

u. Woodfine ii. 69 

V. Wooding i. 517 

V. Wright ii. 202, 327, 541 

V. WyckofF i. 242 

Smith's Adm'r ['.Lamberts i. 118 

Smith's Heirs v. Dickson i. 117, 118 

Smitherman v. Smith ii. 684 

Smithson v. Garth i. 28 

Smout V. Ilbery i. 67, 71 

Smuller v. Union Canal Co. ii. 629 

Srayley v. Head ii. 8 

Smyrl v. Niolon ii. 161 

Smyth, ex parte i. 516; ii. 521 

V. Craig i. 72 

V. M'Masters ii. 756 

V. Tairkersley i. 163 

Snaith v. Gale iii. 507 

Snead v. Watkins ii. 156 

Snedeker I). Warring i. 512 

Snee v. Prescot ' i. 598 

V. Trice i. 406, 408 

Sneed r. Ewing ii. 595 

17. Weister ii. 632 

V. Wiggins ii. 660 

Sneider v. Geiss ii. 256 

Snell V. Foussat ii. 611 

V. Moses i. 584 

V. The Independence ii. 42 

V. Rich ii. 348 

Snellgrove v. Bailey i. 236 

V. Hunt iii. 469 

Snelling v. Lord Huntingfield ii. 44 ; 

iii. 36 

Snethen v. Memphis Ins. Co. ii. 408 

Snevily v. Read i. 381 

Snoddy v. Cage iii. 96 

Snodgrass's Appeal i. 205 

Snook V. Davidson iii. 266 

V. Fries ii. 518 
V Hellyer ii. 690, 712; iii. 471 

Snow, in re 

iii. 499 

V. Conant 

ii. 738 

0. Eastern E. 



ii. 256 

V. Franklin 

ii. 688 

V. Perkins 

i. 284 

V. Perry 

ii. 622, 645 

V. Ware 

ii. 59, 524 

V. Warner 

iii. 49 

V. Wope ii. 345, 346 

Snowden u. Phoenix Ins. Co. ii. 399 

V. Warder ii. 540 

Snowdon v. Davis i. 79, 80, 466 

Snowhill V. Snowhill iii. 481 

Snyder v. Farmers Ins. Co. ii. 421, 432 

V. Findley ii. 775, 786 

u. Riley i. 255 

V. Sponable i. 75 

V. Vaux iii. 200 

V. Wise ii. 613 

Soames v. Spencer i. 550 

Scares v. Rahn ii. 284 

Society in Troy v. Goddard i. 454 

V. Pen-y i. 452, 454 

Society, &c. v. New Haven iii. 532 

V. Wheeler i. 434 ; ii. 360 

Sogers V. Hackett i. 271 

Sohier v. Easterbrook ii. 691 

V. Loring i. 286 

Solarte v. Palmer i. 283 

Soles V. Hickman iii. 355 

Sollers, ex parte iii. 482 

Solly V. Forbes i. 28, 29, 187 ; ii. 714, 


V. Rathbone i. 83, 93, 99 

V. Whitmore ii. 414 

Solomon v. Gregory ii. 25 

V. Kinimel i. 428 

Solomons v. Bank of England i. 242, 

253 ; iii. 274 

o. Jones iii. 118 

V. M'Kinstry ii. 689, 699 

V. Ross iii. 452 

Soltau V. DeHeld iii. 376 

Somerville w. Somerville ii. 571 

;;. Williams i. 276 

Somes V. Brewer ii. 783 

1/. British Empire Shipping 

Co. ii. 261 

V. Skinner ii. 783 

V. Sugrue ii. 276 

Sommer w. Wilt iii. 172 

Soome V. Gloen iii. 137 

Sophie, The ii. 264 

Sorbe v. Merchants Ins. Co. ii 362 

Sorrelle i\ Sorrelle ii. 738 

Sorsliie y. Park i. 15, 16, 17, 23 

Sortwell V. Hughes i. 456 

Souch V. StrawbridgB iii. 35, 38, 39, 57 
Soulden v. Van Rensselaer iii. 85 

South, ex parte 1.219 

Southampton v. Brown i. 468 

Southard v. Porter i. 256 



Soutliard v. Rexford ii. 63, 67, 69 

V. Steele i. 192 

South Carolina Society v. Jolinson 

ii. 16 
Southcomb v. Bishop of Exeter iii. 387 
Southeombe v. Merriman ii. 471 

Southcotew. Hoare i. 15, 22 

V. Stanley ii. 153 

Southcote's Case ii. 90, 112 

South-Eastera Railway Co. v. Knott 

iii. 409 
Southern Ins. Co. v. Gray i. 54 

Life Ins. & Tr. Co. v. Cole 

iii. 51 
Southerne v. Howe i. 576 

Souther's Case i. 407 

South Sea Co. a, Buinbstead ii. 705 

V. Duncorab iii. 272 

South Wales Railway Co. v. Wythes 

iii. 372", 375, 405 

Southwick V. The Clyde ii. 271 

V. Bstes i. 103 

Southworth v. Smith ii. 643, 646 

Souverbye v. Ardeu iii. 329 

Soward v. Palmer ii. 636 

Sower V. Bradtield i. 12 

Spain «. Arnott ii. 32, 35 

Spaflford V. Dodge ii. 306, 327 

Spalding «. Adams ii. 119 

y. Dixon iii. 505 

V. People iii. 524 

V. Preston i. 456 

V. Ruding i. 608 

V. Vandercook i. 465 ; ii. 639 

Spann v. Baltzell i. 281, 283 

Sparhawk v. Allen i. 135 

V. Buell i. 294 

V. Russell i. 212 

Sparkes v. Marshall ii. 355, 356 

Sparkling v. Smith iii. 62 

Sparks V. Ganigues ii. 636 

!/. Kittredge ii. 326 

o. Purdy iii. 196 

Span- V. Wellman ii. 256 

Sparrow v. Caruthers ii. 367 

Sparry's Case ii. 725, 727 

Spaulding u. Alford ii. 56 

V. Bank of Muskingum iii. 108 

Spear v. Hartley iii. 239 

V. Hooper ii. 698 

V. Newell ii. 545 

Spears v. Hariley iii. 100, 268 

Specht V. Ciimmonwealth ii. 763 

Speed V. Philips i. 436 

Speights V. Peters i. 197 

Spence v. Chadwick i. 504, 566 ; ii. 201, 


V. White ii. 736 

Spencer v. Billing i. 189 

V. Cone iii. 55 

V. Daggett ii. 169 

V. Durant i. 14, 23 

Spencer w. Eustis ii. 316, .147 

V. Field i. 55, 65 

V. Harvey i. 271 

V, Negro Dennis i. 415 

V. Tisue ii. 615 

V. Wilson i. 70 

Spencer's Case i. 232 

Sperry, in re i. 212 

Spicer v. Burgess iii. 297 

V. Cooper ii. 536 

V. Norton ii. U 

Spies V. Joel iii. 426 

V. Newberry i. 235 

Spikes V. English iii. 172, 174 

Spildt V. Bowles iii. 479, 498 

V. Heath i. 564 

Spiller, ex parte iii. 465 

Spindler v. Greillet i. 272 

Spires n. Hamot ii. 635 

Spitzer V. St. Marks Ins. Co. ii. 350 

Spong V. "Wright iii. 69 

Spoor V. Bookelin iii. 201 

V. Holland iii. 201 

Spotswood V. Barrow ii. 40 

Sprague v. Baker i. 232 

V. Birdsall iii. 287 

Spreadbmy v. Chapman i. 347 

Sprigwell V. Allen i. 574 

Spring V. Chase iii. 224 

u. Coffin i. 462 

V. Gray iii. 64, 88, 90 

V. Haskell ii. .335 

w. So. Car. Ins. Co. ii. 354, S55; 

iii. 426 

Springer v. Foster iii. 440, 441 

V. Hutchinson ii. 3 

Springfield Bank u, Merrick i. 458 ; ii. 

746, 747 

Sproatt V. DonncU ii. 327 

Sprott V. Powell i. 125 

iSproul V. Heramingway i. 105 

Sproule !'. Ford iii. 197 

.SpruiU V, N. Car. Ins. Co. ii. 475 

Spurrier r. Hancock iii. 385 

Squier !.•. Hunt i. 532 

V. Mayer i. 512 

Squire v. Campbell iii. 376, 387, 389 

V. Grcvell ii. 697, 700 

(•. Tod i. 492 

(,-. Whipple ii. 44; iii. 36 

Squires v. Whiskan ii. 756 

Srodes v. Cavcn ii. 120 

Staats 0. Howlett i. 183; ii. 19; iii. 16 

V. Ten Eyck iii. 165, 224, 225, 

226, 2-30 

Stables v. Eley i. 170 ; ii. 230 

Stacoy V. Decy ii 795 

u. Franklin Ins. Co. ii. 372, 4.')7, 


Stackpole v. Arnold i. .55 

u. Simon ii 465 

I'. Symonds ii 764 



Stackwood v. Dunn ii. 795 

Stailt V. IMl iii. 15 

Stafibrd v. Bartholomew iii. 406 

t. Bryan iii. 69 

V. Clark ii. 638 

V. Newsora ii. 771 

V. Richardson iii. 92 

V. Roof i. 322 

in re i. 123 

Stagg, ejc parte iii. 465 

Stainback o. Rae ii. 309 

Stainbank v. Bank of Virginia i. 42 

f. Fcnning 
V. Read 
Staines v. Plank 
V. Shore 
Stainland v. Hopkins 
Stair 0. Robinson 
Stalker v. McDonald 

i. 78; ii. 282 

i. 43 

iii. 506 

i. 497 

ii. 513 

iii. 546 

i. 259 

Stamford Bank u. Benedict ii. 632 

Stanard v. Eldridge iii. 228 

Standcn v. Clirinnas i. 504 

Staniforth v. Fellowes iii. 515 

Stanley's Appeal i. 1.34, 136 

Stanley u. Gaylord ii. 128 

V. Jones ii. 766 

V. Kemptou iii. 122 

V. Robinson iii. 410 

V. Stanley iii. 533 

V. Towgood iii. 233 

Stanly v. Duhurst iii. 497 

V. Hendricks ii. 10; iii. 23 

Stansbnry v. Fringer iii. 378, 411 

Stansell v. Roberts iii. 282 

Stansfield !'. Johnson iii. 1 1 

Stanton v. Allen i. 456 

V. Bell ii. 105 

V. Blossom i. 284 

!>. Eager i. 289, 608; ii. 291 

V. Ellis iii. 522 

V. Hall iii. 482 

ti. Henry ii. 700 

V. Small i. 523 ; iii. 209, 210 

V. Wilson i. 296, 303, 307 

Stanwood v. Kick ii. 406 

Stapilton v. Stapilton i. 438 ; iii. 409 

Staples V. Emery i. 510, 512 

Stapleton v. Conway ii. 586 

V. Nowell ii. 638 

Starbuck v. New England Ins. Co. 

ii. 409 

Stark V. Parker ii. 33, 36, 659 

Co. Ins. Co. V. Hurd ii. 458 

Starkweather u. Loring ii. 613 

Starr v. Bennett ii. 773 

V. Goodwin ii. 274 

V. Pea.'iO iii. 220 

V. Taylor i- 366 

V. Torrey i. 256 

Startup V. Cotazzi iii. 206 

u. Macdonald i. 532, 538 ; ii. 


State V, Clarke 

V. Cook 

V. Dunnavant 

V. Gaillard 

V. Hale 

V. Hallett 

V. Hawthorne 

CI. Hcyward 

u. Jeans 

V. Mann 

V. Mathews 

V. Nciil 

V. Patterson 

V. Phalen 

a. Reynolds 

V. Richmond 

V. Samuel 

V. Sterling 

V. Suhecr 

V. "Whyte 

Bank v. Cowan 
u. Hunter 
0. Littlejohn 
V. Seawell 
V. Slaughter 
V. Welles 
a. Wilborn 
V. Woody 

Ins. Co. V. Roberts . 

Treasurer v. Cross 
Stavely v. Parsons 
Stavers v. Curling 
Stead u. Dawber 

V, Nelson 

V. Salt 

I. 294 

i. 304 

ii. 496 

i. 428, 584 

i. 406 

ii. 579 

iii. 556 

iii. 532 

i. 403 

i. 407 

ii. U5 

i. 186 

ii. 5'J6 

iii. 556 

ii. 23, 25 

i. 296 ; iii. 462 

i. 414 

iii. 556 

ii. 759 

i. 408 

iii. 130 

iii. 134 

ii. 685 

iii. 95, 96 

i. 282 

ii. 622 

iii. 4.33 

iii. 76 

ii. 355, 452 

i. 4.'i2 

iii. 493 

ii. 532 

ii. 666 

iii. 413 

i. 191 

Steadman v. Duhamel ii. 799 ; iii. 315, 341 
Steamboat Co. i,. Wliillden ii. 314 ; iii. 172, 


New World v. King ii. 87, 223 

Steam Nav. Co. v. Dandridge ii. 171 

Stearn v. Mills iii. 337 

Stearns v. Barrett ii. 750, 752 

V. Haven i. 158, 188 

V. Marsh ii. 120; iii. 202 

I'. Swift iii. 223 

Stehbins v. Globe Ins. Co. ii. 422, 431, 


V. Leowolf ii. 649 

u. Palmer ii. 70 

V. Sherman i. 381 

V. Smith i. 444 ; iii. 19 

Stedman v. Eveleth i. 143 

Steel, ex parte iii. 465 

u. Hoe iii. 16 

0. Jennings i. 182 

V. Lacy ii. 405 

V. Steel ii. 47 

V. Whipple iii. 1 20 

Steele V. Harmer i. 145 

<,-. Iris. Co. ii. 158, 442 

I/. Putney ii. 795, 800 

u. Thatcher ii. 346 



StecTie V. Aylcsworth iii. 48.5 

Steers v. Lashley i. 2.56 

Stfgall V. Stc-f,-ail i. 337 

SteiL'litz >: Eiisrinton i. 52 

Stei'uback v. Khinelander ii. 353, 359 

Stein's Case iii. 452 

Stoinhauer v. Witman ii. 788 

Steinman v. Magnus ii. 620 

Steman v. Harrison i. 250, 468 

Stem's Appeal i. 135 

Stephens v. Badcock i. 89 

V. Baircl ii. 796 

ti. Bales of Cotton ii. 316 

V. Beal i. 341 

V. De Medina iii. 461 

V. Elwall iii. 479, 502 

V. Lowe iii. 296 

V. Olive i. 360 

V. Sole iii. 471 

V, S(|uire iii. 23 

v. WilkiiLson i. 598 

Stephenson v. Dickson i. 280 

V. Hall i. 312 

!,•. Hardy i. 352 

V. Hart ii. 210 

V. Little iii. 200 

V. Fiimrose i. 271, 279 

Steptoe's Adm'rs k. Harvey's Ex'i-s 

iii. 108 

Sterling v. Sinnickson ii. 73 

Sterry v. Arden i. 431 

Stetson V. Mass. Ins. Co. ii. 363, 36S, 

424, 438 

V. Patton i. 52, 68, 110 

Stevens, ex juirte iii. 460 

V. Adams i. 116 ; ii. 56 

V. Armstrong i. 105, 107 

u. Austin ii. 780 

11. Bell iii. 426 

V. Blanchard ii 259 

V. B^ilx^^s ii. 618 

V. Gushing ii. 680 

V. Davis iii. 110, 135 

V. Eno i. 528 

V. Fuller i, 581 ; ii. 776 

V. Gay lord ii. 715 

V. HartwuU iii. 181 

V. Jackson iii. 462 

V. Judson ii. 783 

V. Lincoln iii. 124 

V. Lyford iii. 176 

V. Kceves ii. 541, 544 

f. Kobins i. 98 

V. Stevens iii. 34 

V. Stewart iii. 43 

V. Strange i. 250 

V. Webb ii. 657 

V. Wilson i. 93 

Steycnson v. Agry iii. 426 

u. Blakeiock iii. 269 

V. Kleppinger ii. 529 

V. Lambard i. 507 

Stevenson v. Weeks 

i. 124 

Steward v. Harding 

i. 514 

V. Lee 

ii. 617 

V. Lombe 

i. .530 

Stewart, ex parte 

V. Aberdeen 

ii. 538, 

iii. 460 
539, 544 

V. Alliston 

i. 494 

V. Ball 

iii. 460 

V. Bell 


367, 403 

u. Caldwell 

i. 181 

V. Cass 

ii. 688 

V. Donelly 
V, Dougherty 
V. Drake 

ii. 651 

i. 580 

iii. 226 

u. Dunlop 

ii. 404 

V. Greenock Marine Ins. Co. 

ii. 386, 395 
V. Loring i. 462 
V. McKcan ii. 18 
V. Moody iii. 484 
V. Morison ii. 402 
V. Noble iii. 229 
V. Oakes i.419 
V. Sloper iii. 460 
V. Spedden iii. 94 
f/. Spenser iii. 426, 449 
0. Steele ii. 396 
V. Stewart iii. 360, 398 
V. Stimpson ii. 53 
V. Tiie State i. 492 
V. Trustees of Hamilton Col- 
lege i. 4.54 
B. U. S. Ins. Co. ii. 742 
D. Walker ii. 34 
V. Winters iii. 373 
Slides V. Arnold ii. 696 
Sticf V. Hart ii. 120 
Stikeman V. Dawson i. 318 
Stiles V. Cowper ii. 796 
V. Farrar i. 226 
V. Granville i. 310 
V. White ii. 774 
Stilk V. Myrick i. 437 
Still V. Hall ii. 740 
V. Hoste ii. 564 
Stilley V. Folger i. 368 
Stilhvcll V. Staples ii. 3.53, 441 
Stimpson v. The Kailroads iii. 165, 173 
Slinemets v. Ainslio iii. 508 
Sfin.son V. Wyuian ii. 334 
Stirling V. Feet iii. 226 
V. VaugUan ii. 368 
Stitt V. Warden ii. 414 
Stock V. Mawson iii. 523 
Stockdale v. Dunlop i. 554, 559 ; ii. 438 
V. Young iii. 220 
Stocken !•. CoUen i. 484 
Stockcr V. Brockelbank i. 160 
V. Harris ii. 413 
Stocking V. Hunt iii. 553 
• V. Sage iii. 27, '92 
Stockley v. Stockley i. 384 ; iii. 395 4i7 



Stocks V. Dobson i. 229 

V. Van Leonard iii. 99 

Stockton V. Frey ii. 220, 224, 229, 686 

V. Turner ii. Til 4 

R. Co. V. Biirrott ii. 305 

Stoddard v. Hart iii. 391 

V. Kimball i. 2.'jl 

u. Long Island Eaib'oad 

Co. ii. 235, 236, 2-10, 248 

V. Martin 

ii. 756 

V. McIUvain 

i. 58 

V. Mix 

i. 438 

Woollen Manuf 

Co. V. 


iii. 248 

Stoddart v. Smith 

i. 495 

Stodden v. Harvey 

ii. 661 

Stoddert v. Bowie's Ex'r 

iii. 355 

u. Vi'strv of 

Port Tobacco 


i. 141 

Stoever i'. Whitman 

ii. 540, 767 

Stokely u. Thompson 

iii. 151 

Stokes V. Cox 

ii. 403 

V. Moore 

iii. 7 

o. Saltonstall 


220, 221, 222, 
224, 229 

Stonard v. Dunkin 

ii. 142 

Stone V. Boston & Maine Eailroad 

iii. 497, 499 

V. Carr 

i. 309 

V. Codman 

i. 105, 109 

0. Compton 

ii. 8 

V, Dennison 


313; iii. 39, 58 

V. Dennis 

ii. 708 

V. Denny 

ii. 775 

0. Fouse 

i. 163 

t>. Fowle 

ii. 657 

V. Gilliam 

i. 535 

V. Lidderdalo 

i. 225 

V. McNair 

i. 352 

V. Marsh 

i. 185; ii. 610 

V. Matthews 

i. 518 

V. Miller 

ii. 685 

i;. National Ins. 


ii. 378 

V. Pointer 

i. 574 

V. Seymour 

ii. 630, 032 

V. Swift 

i. 290 

V. Vance 

ii. 555 

V. Waitt 


. 186, 211,335 

V. Ware 

iii. 126 

V. Whiting 

i. 509 

V. Wilson 

ii. 724 

V. Withipool 

i. 316 

V. Wood 

i 64, 65 

Stonehewer v. Farrar 

ii. 693, 696 

Stonehouse v. Gent 

i. 78 

Stoney v. Amer. Life Ins. 

Co. iii. 122 

Stoolfoos V. Jenkins 

i. 317 

Storer v. Great Western Railway Co. 

iii. 372 

V. Gordon 

ii. 332 

V. Hunter 

i. 530. 

V. Logan 

i. 267 

Stprko u. DeSmeth ii. C98 

Storm V. Stirling i. 249 

V. Waddell iii. 513 

Storr !'. Crowley ii. 183, 184, 200 

Storrs V. Barker ii. 796; iii. 398- 

V. City Bank of Utica i. Iu6 

Story ti. Elliot ii. 757 

V. Finnis ii. c.i9 

V. Johnson i. 326 

t). Livingston ii. 635 

V. Lord Windsor i. 75 

V. Patten ii. 735 

r. liicliardson i. 10, 25 

Stouffer ('. Coleman iii, 408 

V. Latshaw i. 392 

Stoughton b\ Lynch i. 166; iii. 152 

!•. Rappalo ii. 295 

Stourbridge Can. Co. u. Whceley ii. 507 

Stout V. Jackson iii. 220 

Stoveld, ex parte iii. 463 

u. Brewin ii. 638 

I'. Hughes i. 603, 008 

Stover V. Hcrrington iii. 425, 426 

Stow V. Stevens ii. B.')7 

Stowe V. Meserve i. 570 

V. M'yse ii. 789 

Stowel r. Zouch i. 335 

Stowell's Adm'r v. Drake i. 31 

V. Robinson iii. 385 

Stracey v. Dccy ii. 743 

Stracy" r. Bank of England i. 439 

Strader r. Graham i. 419 

V. Lambeth ii. 557 

Sti-atford Bank v. Crosby ii. 27 

Strangborough v. Warner i. 448 

Strange y. Brcnnau iii. 417 

V. Price i. 235 

Strathmore !■. Bowes i. 370 

Straton v. Rastall ii. 555 

Stratton v. Hale iii. 517 

V. Pettit ii. 496, 505, 512 

Streatfield v. Halliday i. 12 

Street V. Blay i. 593 

!>. Rigby ii. 708; iii. 162 

Strecter v. Horlock ii. 54 

Stretch v. Parker ii. 61 

Stretton i'. Busnach i. 366 

Sirilililchill c. Brett ii. 74 

Stribling v. Rank of the Valley iii. 109, 


Strickland v. Coker i. 332 

u. Maxwell i; 510 ; ii. 502 

u. Turner i. 522 

Strithrost v. Graeme iii. 96 

Strode v. Paissel ii 564 

Stroh !;. Uhrich ii. 742 

Strong V. Barnes ii. 503 

V. Campbell ii. 145 

t'. Clawson iii. 468 

V. Foster i. 257 ; ii. 25 

V. Hart iii. 245 

V. Harvey ii. 642 



Siroug V. Manuf. Ins. Co. u. 436, 439, 


V. Martin ii. 378 

V. Natally ii. 199 

V. N. Y. Ins. Co. ii. 416 

V. Smith i. 343 

u. Strong ii. 617; iii. 201 

V. Wilkin i. 370 

Stronghill v. Buck ii. 789 

Strother v. Lovcjoy ii. 271, 272 

V. Lucas ii. .583 

Stroud V. Marshall i. 383 

Strowd V. Willis ii. 790 

Stuart «. Commonwealth ii. 738 

V. h. &. N. W. Railway Co. 

iii. 352 

V. Wilkins i. 577 

Stubbs V. Lund i. 553, 604, 605 

V. P;ise iii. 224 

Stucky V. Clybuni i. 576 

Stukelej v. Butler ii. 514 

Stultz V. Dickey i. 510 

Stump V. Henry iii. 74 

Sturge V. Stuvge i. 493 

Sturges V. Crowninshield i. 6; iii. 430, 

435, 436, 437, 442, 446, 493, 

549, 550, 553, 555, 557 

i;. Murphy ii.310 

Sturgess V. Caiy ii. 324, 325 

Sturgis !). Cloii'ih ii. 310 

V. Slocura iii. 260 

Sturdevant n. Pike i. 87 

Sturt II. Mellish iii. 89 

Sturtevant v. Ball.ard i. 530 

Stuyvesant u. Mayor of New York 

iii. 372 
I). Woodruff ii. 534 

Styan, in re ii. 482 

Styles V. Wardlo ii. 664 

Success, The ii. 399 

Suckley v. Delafield ii. 405 

y. Fnrse ii, 424 

Sacklingoi'. Coney ii. 642 

Suffolk Bank «. The Worcester Bank 

ii. 637, 639 

Sugden v. LoUcy ii. 605 

Sugg V. Tillman iii 449 

Sullivan V. Jacob iii. 416 

V. Mitchell i. 274 

V. Sullivan i. 357 ; ii. 82 

V. Tuck iii. 366 

Suramoril v. Elder i. 601 

Summers v. Ball i. 3.53 

Suramersett 0. Jarvis iii. 46O 

Sumner v. Bowen i. 287 

y. Ford i. 272 

!>. Hamlet ii. 259 

V. Jones ii. 765 

v. Powell i. 202 

./. Williams i. 128; ii. 30, 499 ; 

iii. 165 

Sumter i'. Lehio iii. 220 

Sunbolt V. Alford ii. 156 ; iii. 250 

Sunderland Ins. Co. v. Kearney ii. 361 
Sun Ins. Co. ('. Wright ii. 369 

Supervisors of Albany Co. u. Dorr ii. 144 
Surcome c. Pinnigcr iii. 29, 396 

Surplice v. Farnsworth i. 501, 505 

Surtees, ex parte iii. 463, 464 

v. Hubbard i. 221 

Surtell V. Brailsford i 366 

Susan, The ii. 318, 319 

Suse V. Pompo i. 288 

Susquehanna Ins. Co. v. Perrine ii. 421 
Sussex Bank v. Baldwin i. 271, 274, 278 


Suteliffe v. Dohrman i. 204 

Suter c. SliccliT iii. 69 

Sutherland v. Briggs iii. 382, 392, 409 

V. Pratt ii. 364 

Sutphen v. Fowler iii. 378 

Sutton V. Buck ii. 95 

V. Cbetwynd iii. 361 

V. Crain i. 128 

u. Hawkins ii. 645 

V. Horn ii. 704 

V. Irwine i. 186 

V. Kettell ii. 290 

V. Tatham i. 81 ; ii. 539 

V. Temple i. 501, 589; ii. 126 

V. Toomer iii. 346 

!■. Tyrell ii. ,36 

u. Warren ii. 82, 594, 595, 596 

V. Woeley iii. 460 

Suttons V. Tyrrell ii. 711 

Suydam v. Bartle iii. 134 

V. Broadnax iii. 441, 443 

t. Clark i. 477, 541 ; iii. 488 

I'. Columbus Ins. Co. ii. 420 

V. Jenkins iii. 106, 196, 197, 198, 

201, 203, 205, 206 

V. Vance ii. 25 

V. Westfall iii. 134 

Swain V. Howland ii. .347 

V. Senet iii. 269 

('. Tyler i. 302 

Swampscot Machine Co. v. Partridge 

ii. 4l'9, 454 

Swan, ex parte iii. 312 

V. Broome ii. 757 

V. Nesmitli i. 92 

V. Stedman i. 188 

u. Tappan iii. 176 

Swanson c Swanson i.336 

u. White iii. 109 

Swanton v. Reed ii. 300 

Swanzey ;■. Moore ii. 37, 526 

Swartwout v. Paj-ne iii. 113, 116 

Swasey v. Vandcrheyden i. 313 

Sweany i>. Hunter i. 437 

Sweat r. Hall i. 359 

Sweeney v. Franklin Ins. Go. ii. 438 

V. Owsley i. 526 

Sweet V. Bartlctt iii 269 



Sweet V. Harcling 
V. Jenkins 
V, Loc 

V. Pym 
Sweeting v. Darthez 
Sweetzer v. French 
Sweezey v. Thayer 
Sweigart v. Berk 
Swete I'. Fairlie 
Swetland v. Creigh 
Swett i\ Colgate 

V. Patrick 
Svvick V. Sears 
Swift V. Barnes 

I/. Bennett 

^. Clark 

V. Hawkins 

V. Kelly 

V. Stevens 

V. Tyson 

V. Vt. Ins. Co. 

V. Williams 
Swigert v. Graham 
Swindall v. Swindall 
Swindler v. Hilliard 
Swiney v. Barry 
Swinfen v. Chelmsford 

0. Swinfen 
Swires v. Parsons 
Swisher v. Williams 
Switzer v. Skilcs 
Swoyer's Appeal 
Sydebotham, ex parte 
Sydney Cove, The 
Sydnor v. Hiird 
Syers v. Biidge 

V. Jonas 
Sykes v. Dixon 

V, Giles 
Sylvester v. Crapo 

^. Downer 
Symes, ex parte 
Symington v. McLin 
Symonds v. CockeriU 
Symons v. James 



ii. 649 

ii. 547 

iii. 9, 15, 36 

i. 600 ; iii. 255 

ii. 304 

i. 186 

i. 135 

i. 23 

ii. 466, 472 

i. 248 

i. 575, 581, 583 

iii. 165, 226 

ii. 796 

iii. 203, 206 

i. 298 

i. 391 ; ii. 338 

i. 428 

ii. 596 

i. 292 

i. 258, 259 

ii. 438 

ii. 36 

ii. 123 

i. 122 

ii. 237, 248 

i. 719 

i. 114, 117 

i. 117 

ii. 47 

ii. 760 

i. 496 

i. 343 

i. 314; iii. 462 

ii. 284 

i. 54, 65 

ii. 543 

ii. 537, 547 

i. 449 ; ii. 44 

; ii. 615,616 

i. 261 

i. 243 

iii. 518 

i. 59 

iii. 108, 140 

i. 493 

Taber v. Cannon 
V. Perratt 
Tafifee v. Warnick 
Taft V. Buffum 

V. Montague 

V. Sei'geant 
Taft & Co. V. Pike 
Tagart v. The State of Indiana 
Taggard v. Loring 
Taggart v. Buckmore 
Talbert v. Melton 
Talbot V. Gray 
V M'Gee 

269, 271 

ii. 104 

i. 512 

i. 197 

ii. 524 

i. 324 

i. 321 

iii. 96 

ii. 265, 300, 378 

ii. 262 

iii. 513 

ii. 29, G62 

ii. 689 


Talbot u. Seemen, The ii. 321 

Taintor v. Prendergast i. 65, 97 

Tait i: Levi ii. 359, 407 

Taitt, ex jmiie i. 212 

Talcot V. Marine Ins. Co. ii. 413 

Talcoit V. Goodwin iii. 470 

TaUcott V. Dndley iii. 468 

Talliafcrro's E.'v'ra v. King's Adm'rs 

iii. 1 53 
Talmadge !i. The Rensselaer & Sar- 
atoga R. R. Co. iii. :i9 
Talvert v. West iii. 44 
Taniplin v. Diggius iii. 483, 515 
Tarns V. Way i. 255 
Tandy v. Tandy ii. 697 
Tanner, ex parte iii. 465 
V. Christian i. 64 
V. Livingston iii. 224 
0. Moore ii. 23 
V. Scovell. i. 601 
V. Smart i. 382 ; iii. 65, 66, 08, 70 

Tansley v. Turner 
Tapley v. Buttci-field 

V. Martens 
Tappan v. Blaisdell 
!'. Kimball 
Tappenden v. Burgess 
Tapscott V, Williams 
Tarleton v. Backhouse 
u. Baker 
u. M'Gawlcy 
(.. Tarleton 
Tarling ?•. Baxter 
Tarplcy v. Hamer 
Tarquair v. Rcilinger 
Tan- V. Williams 
Tarrant v. Webb 
Tartar, Tlie 
Tassell v. Lewis 
Tatara v. Williams 

i. 528 

i. 178, 179, 184 

ii. 623 

i. 204, 205, 207 

iii. 83 

iii. 4S5 

i. 23 

iii. 151 

ii. 757 

iii. 182 

ii. 609 

i. 526, 527 

iii. 552 

ii. 696 

i. 368 

ii. 43 

ii. 284 

i. 283 

iii. 89 

iii. 12 

iii. 108, 111, 116 

ii. 26 

iii. 354 

i. 217,218 

i. 203 ; ii. 709 

ii. 774 

ii. 5 


Tate V. Citizens Ins. Co. ii. 355, 450, 453 
1'. Greenlee 
V. Wellings 
V. Wymond 
Tatham v. Piatt 
Tatlock !'. Harris 
Tattersall v. Groote 
Tatton V. Wade 
TatRm V. Bonner 
Taunton v. Costar 

Bank v. Richard.son i. 277 

Copper Co. c. Merch. Ins. 

Co. ii. 363, 364 

Tawney v. Crowther iii. 417 

Tayler v. Marling ii. 713 

Tayloe r. Merchants Fire Ins. Co. i. 484 ; 

ii. 420, 461 ; iii. 374 

u. Sandiford ii. 630; iii. 158 

Taylor ;;. jEtna Ins. Co. ii. 474, 485 

V. Ashton i. 68 ; ii. 77.> 

V. Backhouse ii. 707 

u. Baldwin ii. 557 



Taylor v. Bank of Illinois 

V, Binney 

V. Blacklow 

V, Brii:^^ 

V. Bnili^a 

V, Bullcn 

V. Carpenter 

V. Cato, The 

u. Chapman 

V. Clay 

V. Coryell 

V. Croker 

V. Dobbins 

V. Pield 

V. Fleet 

V. French 

V. Galkip 

V. Geary 

V. Grocn 

V, Henderson - 

V. Horde 

V. Jones 

V. Kynicr 

V. Laird 

V. Longworth 

V. Lowell 

V. Mag'uire 

V. Mills 

V. Mortindale 

V. Moseley 

V. Neville 

V. Nk-olson 

V. Patrick 

V. Pluuier 

V. Popliam 

V. Pugh 

V. Robinson 

V. Ross 

V. Salmon 

V. Savage 

V. Shelton 

V. Sliura 

V. Snyder 

V. Spears 

V. Stibbcrt 

V. Termc 

V. Trneraan 

u. Walvefield 

V. Waters 

V. Wtld 

V. Wells 

V. Wetniore 

V. Wheeler 

V. Wliitehcad 

V. Whittliorn 

V. Wilson 

V. Young 

V. Zcpp 
Taymon v. iVlilehell 
TeaiT o. Hewitt 
Teague v. Hulibard 
Teal u. Antv 

1. 591 
i. 398 

207, 209 

291 ; ii. 

ii. 351 

i. 287 

ii. 3 

i. 114 

536, 541 

i. 279 

; ii. 273 

; iii. 174 

ii. 317 

i. 509 

ii. 305 

i. 192 

i. 330 

i. 248 

; iii. 281 

584, 769 

i. 279 

ii. 650 

iii. 455 

i. 73 

i. 175 

ii. 503 

271, 445 

633, 795 

ii. 34 

iii. 383 

358, 408 

iii. 183 

186, 507 

i. 493 

ii. 723 

iii. 374 

ii. 690 

384, 438 

284, 482 

ii. 736 

ii. 67 

iii. 261 

iii. 16 

i. 86, 87 

i. 37 

i. 64 

467, 492 

i. 275 

iii. 92 

iii. 358 

i. 161 

i. 291 

iii. 41 

ii. 735 

ii. 782 

ii. 212 

ii. 13 

iii. 471, 475, 476 

ii. 127 

iii. 486 

ii. 361, 405 

170; iii. 506, 5ii9 

ii. 7117 

i. 584 

i. 512 

i. 165 

iii. 33 

Teall y. Felton ii. 145 

V. Sears ii. 178 

Teasdale u. Charleston Ins. Co, ii. 391 


Tebbets in re 

V. Haskins 
Tebbetts ;■. Hamilton Ins. Co 

V. Pickering 
Tcbbs V. Carpenter 
Teed v. Elworthy 
Teesdale v. Anderson 
Tcgetmcyer i:. Lumley 
Tempest v. Fitzgerald 

u. Kilner 

Temple, ex parte 

V. Hawley 

V. Se.iver 

V. Steinan 

Templeman v. Biddle 

V. C'ase 
Templer v. McLaehlan 
Tenant v. Elliott 
Ton Broeek v. De Witt 

V. Livingston 
Tench v. Cheese 
Ten Eyck v. Brown 
17. \\'ing 
Tennant v. Strachan 
Tenn. Ins. Co. i'. Scott 
Tenney v. Prince 
TerruU v. Goddard 
Terrutt v. Taylor 
Tcrrill i'. Richards 
Territt v. Bartlett 
Terry v. Belclier 
V. Bissell 
V. Carter 
u. Dnntze 
(^. Fai-go 
V. Parker 
V. Waclier 
Tctky V. Taylor 
Tewksbury i-'. O'Connell 
Thacher v. Dinsmore i. 8, 
Thackaray v. The Farmer 
Thacker v. Shepherd 
Thackoorseydass i\ DhondmuU 
Thallhimer v. Brinckcrhoff 
Thames Iron Co. v. Patent Derrick 

Co. ii. 139; iii. 237 

Tliatcher v. Bank of New York i. 48 

ni. 459 

ii. 59 

ii. 422,434 

iii. 443 

i. 122 

i. 23 

1. 582 

ii. 738 

531 ; iii. 41 

iii. 205, 2Uti 

iii. 471 

i. 332 

i. 194 

iii. 298 

i. 510 

ii. 95 

i. 116 

ii. 747 

iii. 270 

iii. 379 

ii. 511 

ii. 3 

iii. 66 

iii. 469, 495 

ii. 356 

i. 243 ; ii. 6 

i. 196 

iii. 528, 529, 532 

i. 156, 176, 189 

i. 456, 458 

i. 530 

ii. 794 

i. 166 

ii. 529 

i. 43 

i. 270, 278 


iii. 448 
ii. 675 
ii. 624 
ii. 339 
i. 24 
ii. 755 
ii. 766 

y. Gammon 
Tliaxton v. Edwards 
Thayer v. Brarkctt 

V. Clemenee 

V. Kin;;' 

V. JWiddlesex Ins. Co, 

V. Mowry 

V. Rock 

o. Tnrner 

L\ Viles 

V. Wadswortb 

V. Wendell 

iii. 120 

ii. 649 

i. 256; ii. 644 

i. 232 

i. 292 

ii. 420 

ii. 728 

iii. 18, 33 

ii. 780 

iii. 35 

ii. 33, 36 

i. 123 



Thayer v. White 
Thelusson v. Fergusson 

V. Fletcher 
Theobald r. Colby 
Tlietforcl l<. Hubbard 
Thetis, Tlie 
Thibault v. Gibson 
Thibodeau v. Luviis^cur 
Thioknesse o. Bromilow 
Thickstun y. Howard 
Thimlilcby /•. Ban-on 
Tliimblctborp v. H.u'desty 
Thin;; v. Libbey 
Thinne v. Rij^liy 
Thorn V. Eigland 
Thomas v. Affliek 

V. Allen 

V. Bird 

V. Bishop 

o. Boston & Prov: 
R. Co. ii. 141 

V. Cadwallader 

V. Catheral 

V. Clarke 

V. Cook i. 38, 509, 

V. Courtnny 
V. Crosswell 
V. Davis 
V. Day 
V. Dering 
V. Desanges 
V. Dickinson 
V. Dike 
V. Dow 
V. Edwards 
V, Evans 
V. Fcnton 
V, Freelon 
V. Generis 
V. Graves 
V. Ilayden 
V. Heathorn 
V. Hewes 
V. Hopper > 
V. Jones 
V. Kelsoe 
V. Lane 
V. Mason 
V. McCann 
</. Miles 
V. Molier 
V. Newton 
V. O'Hara 
V. Osborn 
V. Pemberton 
V. Popham 
V. Rawlinga 
V. Rideing 
V. Roosa 
V. Shillibeer 
V. Sorrell 

' 312 
ii. 400, 413 
ii. 392 
ii. 746 
ii. 642, 646 
ii. 320 
iii. 107 
ii. 590 
i. 182 
ii. 146, ir)3 
ii. 713 
i. 23 
i. 324 
ii. 692 
ii. 775 
ii, 664 
iii. 186 
iii. 296 
i. 121 
idence R. 
,172, 188,199 
ii. 533 
iii. 110 
ii. 302, 303 
510; iii. 798; 
iii. 22 
iii. 523 
iii. 168 
ii. 29, 662 
ii. 142 
iii. 402 
iii. 504 
iii. 35 
i. 315; ii. 37 
ii. 26 
i. 63, 65 
ii. 642 
iii. 309 
ii. 725, 726 
i. 418 
ii. 545 
i. 503 
ii. 618, 619 
i. 65 
ii. 738 
iii. 373 
iii. 481 
ii. 345 
iii. 126 
ii. 775, 786 
ii. 752 
ii. 692 
i. 253, 255 
ii. 545 
ii. 284 
iii. 490, 491 
iii. 472 
i. 114 
iii. 470 
i. 248 ; ii. 651 
i. 220 
ii. 511 

Thomas v. Thomas i. 429, 467 ; ii. 550, 


ii. 622 

ii. 441 ; iii. 405 

i. 455 ; ii. 40 ; 

iii. 17, 18, 28 

i. 20 

i. 199, 241 ; iii. 469, 


V. Todd 
V. Vonlcapff 
V. Williams 

Thomason c. Frere 

Thomasson v, Boyd 
Thombleson v. B!aek 
Thomes v. Cleaves 
Thomett v. Haines 
Tliomondy. Earl of Suffolk 

Thompson, ex parte 
in re 
u. Alger 
i;. Andrews 
V. Bell 
V. Berry* 
V. Blanchard 

V. Botts 
u. Brown 
u. Charnock 

i. 327 

iii. 376 

iii. 123 

i. 497 

i. 344 

iii. 457, 506, .508 

ii. 580 

iii. 209, 210, 433 

i. 201 

i. 47 

iii. 120 

i. 429, 530 ; 

ii. 796 

i. 577, 592 

ii. 632 

ii. 708 

V. Davenport i. 63„65, 95, 96 
V. Dominey i. 289, 601 ; 

V. Emery 
o. Finden 
II. Gillespy 
V. Gutlirie 
V. Halo 
V. Harding 
V. Havelock 
u. H('r\'ey 
V. IlewiJt 
V. Hopper 
V. Inglis 
V. Jones 
V. Ketcliam ii 
V. Lacy 
!;. Lay 
V. Lindsay 
V. Lyon 
V. Marrow 
V. McCuUough 
V. McFarland 

ii. 290 

i. 227, 229 

ii. 269 

ii. 400 

iii. 229 

i. 256, 261 

i. 132 

i. 86, 100 

i. 362 

iii. 516, 524 

ii. 374, 410 

ii. 303 

iii. 117 

552, 583, 600 

ii. 145 

i. 324, 382 

i. 484 

i. 316 

iii. 223 


ii. 797 

, N. Y. & Harlem R. R. 

V. Page 
V. Patrick 
V. Percival 
u. Perkins 
u, I'owles 
V. Reynolds 
V. Ross 

iii. 536 

i. 454 

ii. 110 

i. 170, 218 

i. 91, 92 

iii. 114 

ii. 377 

ii. 71 

V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 

ii. 384 
o. Shattuck iii. 185, 233 

V. Shepherd i. 257 ; iii. 495 
V. Small ii. 287 



Thompson v. Tliompson i. 596 

V. Tiles i. 531 

V. Tod iii. 391 

V. Towle i. 575 

V. Trail i. 605 ; ii. 287 

V. Williamson i. 157 

V. Wilmot i. 405 ; iii. 374 

u. VVoodbridye iii. 125 

Thomson v. Bank of S. C. ii. 104 

V. Buchanan ii. 403 

V. Davenport i. 548; ii. 271 

V. Dougherty i. 235 

V. Harrison ii. 73 

u. Hopper iii. 89 

V. Redman ii. 740 

V. Roval Ex. Ass. Co. ii. 283 

Thomyris, The " ii. 398 

Thoreau v. i'allics ii. 691 

Thorley, ex parte iii. 464 

V. Lord Kerry iii. 174 

Thornbury v. BeviU iii. 389, 404, 418 

Thornborow v. VVhiteacro i. 436 

Thorndike v. Bordman ii. 414 

i,. City of Boston ii. 578, 580 

t.. Do Wolf i. 163 ; ii. 266, 


V. Norris ii. 791 

II. Stone ii. 283 ; iii. 138 

Thome v. Deas ii. 103 

V. Watkins ii. 571 

V. White ii. 3-44, 34S 

Thornett v. Haines iii. 414 

Thornton v. Appleton ii. 721 

I/. Bank of Washington iii. 134 

V. Carson ii. 689, 694, 698 

i;. Charles iii. 13 

V. Davenport i. 530 

V. Dixon i. 149, 150 

u. Fairlie i. 439 

i.: Illingworth i. 324, 329 ; 

iii. 642 

V. Kempster iii. 13 

V. Mcux iii. 13 

V. Place i. 464 ; ii. 524 

u. Thompson iii. 2U 

K. U. S. Ins. Co. ii. 326, 417 

v. Wynn i. 592 

Thorogood v. Bryan ii. 233 

V. Marsh ii. 161 

Thorold v. Smith i. 51 ; ii. 615 

Thorp V. Thorp ii. 529, 531 

Thorpe v. Booth i. 266 

V. Cooper ii. 699 

V. Thorpe i. 444 ; iii. 496 

V. White ii. 37 

Thrall v. Newell ii. 506 

Thrasher v. Everhart ii. 589 

V. Haynes ii. 690 

V. Tuttle ii. 615 

Threlkeld v. Fitzhugh iii. 226, 227 

Throckmorton v. Tracy i. 506, 508 

Thirupp V. Fielder i. 323, 324 

Thrustout V. Crafler ii. 736 

Thurber v. Blackburne ii. 609 

Thurlow V. Massachusetts iii. 557 

Thurman v. Wells i. 226 

Thursby v. Plant iii. 492 

Thurston v. Blanchard ii. 624 

V. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 378 

V. Fisher iii. 99 

p. Koch ii. 457 

V. Martin iii. 165 

V. McKown i. 242, 260 

V. Percival i. 115 ; ii. 760 

V. Thornton i. 478 

Thurstoat v. Grey iii. 220 

Thweatt v. Jones i. 37 

Thwing V. Wash. Ins. Co. ii. 389 

Tliynne v, Prothcroe iii. 340 

Tibbetts V. Towle i. 537 

Tibbits i: George i. 219, 226, 229 ; ii. 

Tickell V. Short i. 85 

Tieonic Bank i;. Johns iii. 134 

Tidd V. Lister iii. 482 

Tidewater Canal Co. v. Archer i. 86 

Tidmarsh v. Washington Ins. Co. ii. 405, 


Tierman v. Beam iii. 278 

Tiernan v. Napier ii. 649, 653 

V. Poor iii. 355 

Tifftv. Culver iii. 172 

Tiltston V. Nettleton ii. 10 

V. Newell ii. 532 

Tiley v. Courtier ii. 622 

Tilley v. Tilley ii. 485 

Tilliert). Whitehead i. 187 

Tillmghast v. Nourse iii. 81 

Tillotson V. Boyd i. 232 

u. Cheetham iii. 172 

V. McCriUis i. 258 

Tillou V. Britton ii. 642 ; iii. 425, 426 

V. Clinton Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 

ii. 723 

Tilton V. Hamilton Ins. Co. ii. 447 

u. Kingston Ins. Co. ii. 430, 439 

u. Russell i. 308 

V. Tilton iii. 356 

The Sch. ii. 278 

Timbers v. Katz i. 342 

Timmins v. Gibbins i. 265 ; iii. 623 

Timmis v. Piatt i. 130 

Timrod v. Shoolbred i. 584 

Tinkler v. Prentice i. 458 

Tindal, ex parte iii. 506 

V. Bright i. 1G5 

V. Brown i. 284 

V. Taylor i. 289 ; ii. 287, 290 

V. Touchberry ii. 10 

Tingle v. Tucker ii. 346 

Tingley v. Cutler i. 430 ; iii. 164 

Tingrey v. Brown i. 132 

Tiidver v. McCanley ii. 3 

Tinney i'. Ashley ii. 656 657 



Tinsley v. Bcall i. 25fi 

Tipper v. Bicknell i. 445 

Tippet V. Hivwkoy i. 26 

Tippets V. Heane iii. 75 

u. "Walker i. 64 ; iii. 34 

Tipping V. Smitli ii. 692 

Tirrell v. Gage ii. 294 

Tisdale v. Harris iii. 50 

V. Mitchell iii. 90 

Tisloe V. Graeter ii. 555 

Ticliburne c. Wliite ii. 203, 254 

Titcorab v. Wood i. 521 

Tittemore i\ Vt. lus. Co. ii. 451 

Titus V. Hob.irt ii. 690 ; iii. 436 

V. Perkins ii. 692 

Tobago, The ii. 281 

Tobey v. County of Bristol ii. 708 

(J. Lennig i. 284 

Tobias v. Francis i. 512 

Tobin V Crawford i. 42 

V. Post iii. 206 

Tod t). Baylor iii. 223 

Todd V. Emiy i. 41 

V. Gee 1. 492 ; iii. 403 

V. Parker ii. 640 

i;. Stokes i. 360 

V. Summers ii. 532 

V. Todd iii. 73 

Toland v. Sprague iii. 88 

Tolbert v. Harrison ii. 735 

Toledo Bank v. Bond iii. 529, 530, 532, 


Tolenu. Tolen ii. 601, 605 

ToUey v. Greene iii. 38 

Tom's Case i. 416 

Tom V. Daily iii. 374 

Tomkins v. Ashby iii. 287 

Tompkins v. Bcrnet iii. 127 

u. Brown i. 382 ; iii. 70, 83 

V. Corwin ii. 513 

V. Elliot ii. 530, 532 

V. Haile iii. 469 

■V. Wheeler iii. 425, 426 

Tomlin u. Mayor, &c. of Fordwich 

ii. 697 

Tomlinson v. Gill iii. 19 

V. Savage i. 497 
Tonnawanda R. R. Co. v. Munger 

ii. 230, 231 

Toogood V. Scott i. 404 

Took V. Tuck iii. 523 

Tooke V. HoUingworth i. 534 ; iii. 479, 


Tooker v. Bennett i. 187 

Tooley v. Windham i. 441 

Toomer v. Dawson iii. 417 

Tope V. Hockin iii. 479, 502 

Toppan V. Atkinson ii. 358 

Tophamu. Braddick i. 88, 89; iii. 91 

0. Chapman iii. 455 

ToiTey V. Baxter i. 1 94 

V. Fisk i. 242 

Torrcy v. Grant 
Touleman v. Price 
Toulmin v. Copland 
Toulson V. Grout 
Touro V. Cassin 
Tourville v. Naish 
Toussaint v. Hartop 

V. Martinnant 
Tonteng v. Hubbard 
Tovey v. Lindsey 
V. Pitcher 

m. 120 
iii. 349 
ii. 633 
iii. 474 
ii. 570 
i. 75 
ii. 712 
i. 31 ; iii. 506 
ii. 305 
ii. 604 
iii. 492 

Tow Boat Co. v. The Delphos ii. 320 
Towell V. Gatewood i. 581, 582 

Tower v. The Utiea, &c. Railroad Co. 

ii. 176 

Towers v. Barrett ii. 678 

V. Moore i. 30 

V. Osborne iii. 53, 54 

Towle V. Kettell ii, 304 

(,. LaiTabee ii. 759 

V. Leavitt i. 58, 297 

V. Marrett ii. 56 

Town of Pawlett v. Clark iii. 529 

Towne v. Smith iii. 443, .455 

c. Wiley i. 317 

Townend v. Drakeford i. 543; iii. 13 

Towner r. AVclls iii. 513 

Townes v. Mend iii. 98 

Towuly V. Crump i. 603, 607 ; iii. 258, 


Townsend v. Bush iii. 1 18 

u. Devaynes i. 151 

V. Houston iii. 394 

V. Inglis i. 49; ii. 616 

V. Jemison ii. 592 

V. Loraine Bank i. 283 

V. Neale i. 22 

V. Newell iii. 245, 254 

V. Riddle i. 187; ii. 23, 26 

V. Townsend iii. 438 

V. Wells ii. 650, 651 

Townshend, ex parte iii. 4^3, 464 

V. Stangioora iii. 389 

Townsley v. Tickell iii. 475 

V. Sunirall i. 286, 431 

Towson V. Havre-de-Grace Bank ii. 151, 

154, 645 

Tracey v. McArlton i. 364 

Tracy v. Jenks ii. 763 

c. Albany^Exchange Co. i. 500 

V. Reed ii. 725 

v. Strong ii. 638, 641, 642 

V. Suvdam i. 202 

V. Wood ii. 92 

Traders Im. Co. v. Robert ii. 439 

Trainer v. The Superior ii. 339 

Trammell v. Harrell ii. 739 

Trask v. Patterson ii. 534 

Traver u. i. 444 

Travis v. Bishop i. 570 

Treadwell v. Moore ii. 630 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 298, 407 



Trcnsnivr, The 
Treasurers v. Bates 
Trent V. Orono 
Tredwen v. Boarne 
Tice r. Qiiimp 

ii. 296 

i. 12; ii. 725 

i. 462 

i. 57. 145 

ii. S3 

Trofroning r, Attcnhorongh 
Tiemaiii v. Liming 
T.cmoiit, The 
Trench v. Chenanso Ins. Co. 

iii. 127 
ii. 656 
ii. 27S 
ii. 422, 
4.-) 7 
Trenclinrd /■. Hoskins ii. 501 

Trent NaYigation Co. v. Ilarley ii. 23 
Trenton Banl^ i-. Wallace ii. 726, 728 

Trenton Ins. Co. c. Johnson ii. 472, 47.'^, 

Treport's Case i. 504 

Trescott u. Davis ii. 794 

Treuttel c. Ilarandon i. 94 

Trilmnc, The ii. 300 

Trident, The ii. 283 

Trii,'^; v. Faris i. 575 

Trigo-s V. Newnliam iii. 62 

Trirahey «. Vi-nicr ii. 570, 588 

Trimble r. RatcliflFo i. 237 

Trinity House r. Clark ii. 302 

Tripp V. Armitage iii. 502 

Tvippe V. Frizier ii. 5t8 

Triton V. t'oote iii. 368 

Triumph, The ii. 317 

Trizell v. Roundtree iii. 514 

Tronson r. Dent ii. 297 

Trott I). Wood ii. 538, 541 

Trotter c. Curtis iii. 134 

■V. Evans iii. 280 

Troup V. Smith iii. 92, 99 

Trousdale r. Darnell i. 513 

Trow [•. Vermoat C. R. R. Co. ii. 231, 233 
Trowhrid^'C v. Cushman i. 205 

Trowel c. Castle ii. 722 

Troy Academy v. NeLson i. 452, 454 

Iron & Nail Factory v. Coming 

ii. 548 

Truedeau ". Robinette i. 402 

True f. Fuller ii. 3 

i\ Plumlcy ii. 757 

V. Ranney ii, 81, 596 

True Blue, The ii. 322 

Trueman v. Fenton iii. 63 

<,.. Loder i. 55, 549; ii. 540; 

iii. 10 

Truesdale v. Hazard ii. 271 

Truett V. Chaplin i. 438, 442 

u. Wainwright ii, 721 

Trull ('. Roxhury Ins, Co. ii 454, 462 

Trumbull c. Portage Co Ins. Co. ii. 451 

I'. Tiltoii i. 381 

Trundy y. Farrar i. 139 

Truscott /,'. Davis ii. 798 

Trustees of Howard College v. Pace 

i. 221 

Trastoes, &q. of Kendrick ii. 624 

of Schools Tatinan iii. 529 

Trustees, &c. of Vinccnnes University 

V. Indiana iii. 

Tryon v. Whitmarsli ii. 

Tubb ?'. Harrison i. 

Tuck ('. Fv^on iii. 

Tnckahoe'Ciinal Co. v. Tuckahoe R, 

R, Co. iii. 

Tucker c. Andrews i. 

IK Bufifington ii. 275, 

V. Clarke iii, 

V. Humphrey i. 602, 607 ; 






u. Justices 
r. M igcc 
V. iMorcland 
V. O.xicy 
r. Ruston 
c. Tucker 
('. Wilamouicz 
V, Wilson 
V. Woods 
Tuckerman v. French 

1. 124 

ii. 50 

i. 325, 328 

iii. 483 

iii. 43, 483 

ii. 744, 745 

iii. 118 

ii. 120 

i. 475 

ii. 13 

V. Xewhall i. 26; ii. 713 

Tuckwell V. Lambert ii. 771 

Tudor V. New. Eng. Ins. Co. ii. 382, 550 

V. Terrel ii. 474 

Tndway v. Bourn iii. 474 

Tuffnel'l c. Constable i. 461 

Tufts c. Adams iii. 223 

r. Tufts iii, 16 

Tu!k V. iMoxhay iii. 353 

Tullor r. Talbot ii. 229 

Tullett V. Armstrong iii. 499 

Tullidge V. Wade ii. 70; iii. 172 

Tunison v. Cramer ii. 15 

T'unnell v. Pettijohn ii. 174 

Tunno r. Bird ii. 707 

i>. League i. 272 

V. Trezevant i. 212 

Tupper V. Cadwell i. 206 

I'. Havthorn iii. 273 

r. Powell iii, 126 

Turberville f. AVhitehouse i. 314 

Tnrley v. North Amer. Ins. Co. ii. 461 

!'. Thomas ii. 231 

TurnbuU v. Gadsden ii. 775 

r. Strohecker ii. 742 

Turner's C.'ise ii. 339, 345 

TuvuGi\ ex parte iii 471 

!■. Bissel i. 136 

V. Browne ii. 687 

u. Burrows ii. 268, 357, 361 

u. Calvert ii. 118 

u. Chrisman i. 435 

u. Coolidge ii. 275 

V. Davies i. 37 

V. Diaper ii. 641 

V. Hubbell iii. 29 

i\ llulme iii. 121 

u. Leech i. 284 

V. Lewis ii. 272 

17. Maddox ii. 712 



Turner v. Mnfon ii. 3 

V. Meyers iii. 461 

V. M(,\mott i. 515 

V. Frotcftion Ins. Co. ii. 412 

V. Kichtirdson iii. 467, 490, 491 
V. Robjnson i. 100; ii. 33, 40 

V. Hookes 
V. RiUturlee 
V. Stftts 
f. iSnaiiison 
u. Trisby 

i. 362 
ii. 735 
ii. 442 
ii. 689, 695 
i. 297 

Lincoln u. Trustees of Liverpool 

Uociss i. 605 ; iii. 487, 


i^. Turner ii. 696 

V. Viiuglian iii. 508 

Tumey v. DotlwcU iii. 74 

V. Williams i. 122 

v. Wilson ii. 165, 169, 172 

Turnpike Co. v. Commonwealth ii. 680 

V. Phillips iii. 532 

Turpin, er parte iii. 506 

0. Povall iii. 114, 127 

Turquaud i'. Vanderplank iii 502 

TmTell V. Morgan iii. 5 

Turrill v. Boynton ii. 26 

V. Cranclay ii. 156 

Turtle V. Muncy i. 345 

V. Worsley i. 366 

Turton c. Benson ii. 72 

V. Turton i. 342 

Tuscumbia R. R. Co. v. Rhodes i. 256 

Tutela ii. 304 

Tutbill r. Davis iii. 120 

Tutor V. Patton i. 235 

Tuttle V. Bartholomew ii. 3 

V. Brown i. 581 

u. Clark iii. 144 

V. Cooper i. 175 

</. Love i. 475 

V. Swctt ii. 44; iii. 36 

V. Tuttle ii. 686 

Twiss V. Massey i. 381 

Twopenny i'. Young i. 29; ii. 716 

Two Catherines, The ii. 340 

Pricnds, The ii. 318 

Tye V. Gwynne i. 465 

Tyler v. JKtna Ins. Co. iii. 437 

V. Binney ii. 3 

V. Bland ii. 646 

V. Carlton i. 430 

V. Currier ii. 262 

V. Home ii. 360 

e. Jones ii. 712 

u. McCardle ii. 660 

Tyly V. Mon-ice ii. 254 

T3Te V. Causey i. 581 

Tyrer v. King iii. 231 

Tyrell's Heirs v. Rountree iii. 513 

Tyrell v. Hope iii. 499 

Tyrie w. Fletcher ii. 351,358 

Tyson v. Cox ii. 25 


Tyson i: Pi-ior 

c. Rickard 
o. Robinson 
t: Watts 

Tyte V, Jones 

ii. 316, 320 

iii. 108, 111) 

ii. 711 

iii. 411 

iii. 300, 313 


Uhde V. Walters ii. 533 

Ulary i-. Washington, The ii. 346, 761 
Ullopk V. Reddelein i. 533 

Ulmer v. Cunuingham i. 26 

Ulrich i: Berger ii. 742 

Underbill v. Agawam Ins. Co. ii. 403, 

V. Gibson i. 444 

V. Saratoga & W. R. R. Co. 

ii. 529 

0. Van Cortlandt ii. 703 

Underwood i'. Wing ii. 485 

Unger i: Boas ii. 756 

Union, The, 1/. Jansen ii. 346, 347 

Union Bank v. Benhain i. 416 

V. Costar's Ex'rs ii. 14 

V. Eaton i. 185 

I'. Edwards iii. 357 

u. Geary i. 118, 439 

u. Gowan i. 278 

V. Hyde i. 278, 287 

V. Kindrick ii. 635 

V. Ridgely ii. 16 

!.'. Willis i. 243, 282 

of La. V. Bowman ii. 13 

of'Md. V. Ridgcly i. 139 

of'Tenn. v. i. 281 

Union Ins. Co. v. Comm. Ins. Co. ii. 350, 

o. Lenox ii. 294, 299 

V. Tysen ii. 367 

Union Steamship Co. i^. N. Y. S. Co. 

ii. 312 
Union Turnpike Co. v. Jenkins i. 8 

United States v. Alden ii. 345, 346 

a. Ames i. 58 ; ii. 689 

V. Arredondo iii. 534 

I,. Bainbridge i. 295, 315, 
V. Bank of U. S. iii. 426 
V. Barker i. 280 

V. Bartlett iii. 399 

u. Blakeney i. 315 

V. Borden ii. 345 

V. Boyd ii. 1 5 

V. Bradbury ii. 633 

V, Buchanan ii. 541 

V. Bulbrd i. 224 

V. Coffin ii. 344 

u. Collins ii. 345 

V. Crosby ii. 571 

V, Curry i. 118 

V, Cutler ii. 345 



United States v. Freeman ii. 345 

V. Gooding iii. 287 

V. Gi-usli ii. 345 

V. Hatch ii. 345 

1-. Hewes iii. 525 

u. Hillogas ii. 17 

u. Hudson i. 58 

V. Hunt ii. 345 

V. Jarvis i. 70 

V. King iii. 426, 525 

V. Kirkpatricic ii. 033 

V. Le Baron ii. 357 

V. Lunt ii. 344 

V. Matthews ii. 346 

V. McLemore ii. 635 

V. Jtorririon iii. 513 

I'. Netcher ii. 345 

V. Parmelee i. 55 
V. Paul Sherman, The 

ii. 414 

V. Robeson iii. 43G 

V. Ruggles ii. 344, 345 
V. Saline Bank of Va. 

iii. 346 

V. Small ii. 345 

V. Tillotson Ii. 17 

V. Wardwell ii. 633 

V. Wilder ii. 331, 339 

,,•. Willis • i. 342 

o. Wilson iii. 525 

V. Wiltenljerger iii. 287 

V. Wyngall i. 58 

V. Yates i. 118 

U. S. Bank v. Bank of Ga. i. 264 ; ii. 622 

V. Binney i. 167 

u. Carneal i. 2S3 

V. Chapin iii. 105 

V. Smith i. 272 

U. S. Ins. Co. V. Scott ii. 336 

University of Vt. v. Buell i. 452, 453 

Unwin v. Wool.'iley i. 124 ; ii. 499 

Updegraffu. Bennett ii. 71 

Upham V. Lefavour i. 99 

V. Prince i. 263 ; ii. 3 

Upnor, The ii. 316 

Upshaw V. McBride ii. 798 

Upson V. Austin iii. 123 

Upton V. Gray i. 63 

V. Salem Ins. Co. ii. 366 

Ure V. Coffinan ii. 311 

Uiruslon v. Xrwcomen i. 299, 300 

Urqutiait c. Biiiiard ii. 414 

1-. .Mrlvrr i. 93 

Usher v. T)r Wolfe i, 227, 228 

Uthwatt c. Elkins i. 125 

Utica Ins. Co. c/. Bloodgood ii. 747 ; iii. 


V. Caldwell ii. 747 

i>. Kip ii. 747 

o. Scott ii. 747 

u. Tillman iii. 130 
DtterBon v. Vernon iii. 505, 506, 509 i 


Vale V. Bayle 

i 533 

V. Hcastis 

iii. 109 

V. Rice 

ii. 536, 543 

V. Strong 

i 521 

Valejo V. Wheeler 

ii. 182 

Valentine v. Foster 

i. 381 

(/. Valentine 

ii. 68S 

i'. 'Vaughan 

iii. 460 

Valk V. Gaillard 

i. 284 

V. State Bank 

i. 284 

Vallance v. Dewar ii. 403, 411, 538 

Vallee v. Duniergue ii. 606 

Vallette v. Mason i. 259 

Valley Bank v. Stribling iii, 109 

Valliant v. Dodemcde iii. 467, 492 

Valpy w. Gibson i. 606 

V. Oakeley iii. 473, 479 

o. Sandars iii. 4'j 

Vatton c. National Ins. Co. ii. 465, 478 
Van Aernam r. Van Aernam i. 337 

Van Alcn v. Rogers iii. 220 

V. Vanderpool i. 58 

Van Allen v. Humphrey i. 369 

Van Alstyne v. Van Slyck i. 11 

Van Amringe ;;. Peabody i. 93 

Van Antwerp v. Stewart ii. 711 

Van Arsdalc v. Howard ii. 775, 776 

Van Atta v. McKinney ii. 56 

Van Baggen v. Baincs ii. 400 

Van Benschooter v. Lawson ii. 636 

Van Bracklin v. Fonda i. 588 

Van Buskirk u. Hart. Pire Ins. Co. i. 219 
u. Purinton ii. 210 

Van Casteel v. Booker i. 605, 606 

Van Derveer v. Wii;lit ii, 29 

Van Dorcn v. Evcritt i. 510 

Van Dyck v. Hewitt ii. 359 

I'.- Van Beuren i. 457 

Van Dyke v. Davis i. 438 

Van Epps i-. Dillaye ii. 625 ; iii. 481 

V. Schenectady i. 495 

Van Hagen v. Rensselaer ii. 503 

Van Horn and Clark Adm'rs v. Bell 

ii. 717 
Van Home v. Grain i. 231 

Van Kcuren v. Parmelee iii. 82, 84 

Van Master «. Babcock ii. 75.3 

Van Ness v. Foriest i. 164 

V. Packard ii. 537 

Van Orden v. Van Orden i. 128 

Van Ostrand i\ Reed i. 547, 590 ; ii. 625 
Van Raugh r. Van Arsdaln iii. 442, 443, 

Van Reimsdvke i'. Kane 1. 175; ii. 570, 

588, 590 

Van Rensselaer r. Gallup i. 231, 515 

u. Jewett i. 503 ; iii. 103 

u. Jones iii. 10.' 

u. Sheriff of Albany 

iii. 513 



Van Ehyn v. Vincent iii. 89 

Van Sandau v. Crosbie iii. 506 

Van Santvooi-d v. St. John ii. 216, 'J17 

Van Syckell v. Ewing, TIio ii. 1 72 

Van Vacther i'. Flack i. 249 

Van Valen v. Russell i. 206 

Van Valkenburgh v. Roun ii. 554 

Van Valkinbuig v. Watson i. 304, 306 

Van Vetchcn v. Pruyn i. 280 

Van Vleet v. Adair iii. 217 

Van Wart c. Smith i. 85 

a. Wooley i. 85 ; ii. 104; iii. 


Van Winkle v. Ketcham i. 318 

Vanada v. Hopkins i. 81 

Vance v. Blair i. 164 

V. Bloomer ii. 649 

V. McLaughlin i. 343 

V. Monroe ii. 632 

ti. Tourne iii. 206 

V. Vance ii. 85 

t;. Ward i. 267 

V. Wells i. 435 

Vancouver v. Bliss iii. 380 

Vandenanker v. Desbrongh iii. 498, 499 

Vandenheuvel i'. United Ins. Co. ii. 389, 


Vanderbilt v. Adams iii. 556 
V. Rithmond Turnpike Co. 

i. 102 

Vanderburgh v. Hall i. 160, 161 

V. Truax iii. 182 

Vanderheyden v. Mallory i. 368 

Vanderpool v. Van Allen i. 512 

Vanderslice v. Newton iii. 176 

Vandervoort i.-. Smith ii. 548 

Vane v. Cobbold ii. 770 

Vanhooser v. Logan ii. 652 

Vanlandingham v. Huston iii. 98 

Vanmeter K. McFadden iii. 477 

Van Natta v. Mutual Ins. Co. ii. 443 

Vann v. Hussey i. 209 

Vansandau u. Browne iii. 93 

Vanvive'e v. Vanvivee ii. 699 

Vardy, ex parte iii. 490 

Varick v. Crane iii. 116, 117 

Varner v. Nobleborough ii. 624 

Varney v. Brewster ii. 691 

V. Grows iii. 98 

V. Young i. 304, 310 

Vamum v. Bellamy i. 259 

V. Martin i. 114 

Vassar v. Camp i. 477, 484 

Vasse V. Ball ii. 404 

V. Smith i. 317, 320 

Vaughan v. Aldrige ii. 71 

V. Davies ii. 736 

V. Fuller i. 271 

V. Hancock iii. 17, 33 

V. Phebe i. 41 9 

f. Taff Vale Ey. Co. ii. 231 

Vanpell a. Woodward iii. 50 

Vaux V. Draper i. 21 

«. ShefFer ii. 309 

Veacock v. McCall i. 430 

Vcazie V. Somerby ii. 265 ; iii. 202 

V. Williams i. 51, 73, 497 ; ii. 782 

Vcazy V. Harmony ii. 646 

Vedder v. Vedder ii. 685 

Venable v. Curd i. 57 

V. Thompson ii. 557 

Vent !;. Osgood i. 295, 315; ii. 37 

Ventris v. Shaw iii. 66 

V. Smith i. 520 

Venus, The iii. 164 . 

Vere v. Smith i. 93 

Vermont Central R. R. Co. u Estate 

of Hills ii. 548 

Vernard v. Hudson ii. 292 

Vernede v. Weber i. 567 

Vernon v. Alsop ii. 514 

V. Hankey iii. 502, 515 

0. Hanson iii. 469 

V. Keys ii. 771 

V. Manhattan Co. i. 169 

V. Morton iii. 426 

V. Smith ii. 441 

V. Vernon iii. 354, 359 

Vertue v. Jewell i. 595, 600 

Very v. McHenry ii. 587 ; iii. 450 

Viall V. Thompson iii. 306 

Vibbard v. Johnson i. 575 

Vicars V. Wilcocks iii. 181 

Vice V. Fleming i. 180 

Vickcry v. Welch ii. 751 

Victoria, The ii. 309, 312 

Victors V. Davies i. 474 

Vidal V. Thompson ii. 570 

Viele V, Hoag ii. 27 

Vielie u. Osgood iii. 8 

Vigers v. Pike iii. 414 

Villers v. Beaumont ii. 555 

Vincenncs, The ii. 267 

Vincent v. Cole iii. 300, 342 

V. Germond iii. 41 

V. Horlock i. 240 

Viner v. Cadell iii. 482 

Vining v. Gilbreth i. 531 

Violett V. Patton i. 7, 242; iii. 16 

!). Powell i. 53, 55 

Virany n. Warne ii. 55 

Virgil, The ii. 309 

Virgin, The ii. 283 

Vischer v. Yates ii. 756 

Vivian v. Campion i. 232 

Vivior V. Wilde ii. 711 

Vlierboom v. Chapman ii. 299, 336 

Vogel V. Peoples Ins. Co. ii. 433 

Voguel, er joarte i. 211 

VoUans v. Fletcher iii. 298 

Volsain v. Cloutier i. 412 

Volunteer, The ii. 293 

Von Hemert v. Porter iii. 152 

Voorhees v. Earl i. 592, 593 ; iii. 182, 211 



Vooi-liees v. Wait 

i. 329 


•. The Ilundrcl of Stoke 

ii. 757 

Vos V. Robinson 

ii. 4i;i 


in, ex parte 

i. 187 

i\ United Ins Co. 

ii. .374 

V. Miles 

i. 514 

Vo30 V. Allen 

ii. 295 

V. Wakefield 


347, 348 

u. Iliuidv 

i. 228 

Wako V. Tinkler 

ii 744 

c: L. & Y. Ry. Co. 

ii. 4.3 

Wakefield & Bingley v. Brown 

i. 20 

V. Morton 

ii. 333 

V. Lithgow 

ii. 621 

V. riiilbrook 

ii. 7:!9 

u. Martin 

ii. 3."j4 

Voylc r. Hup;iies 

iii. 360 

a. Smart 

iii. 98, 90 

VreeJe v. Scliolyts 

ii. 398 

Wakeman v. Grover 

iii. 425 

Vreclinid r. Hyde 

i. 279 

r. Hoyt 


461, 4?,-, 

Vroom i\ Villi Ilorne 

i. 132 

Wnland v. Elkins 


213, 229 

Vulliiimy r. Xoble 

i. 197 


Ige L\ Harroon 

382, 434 

Vynioi-'s Ciise 

ii, 710 

Walburn c. Ingilby 

i. 192 

A'yso V. Wakefield 

ii. 669 

Walcott V. Keith 

i. 530 


V. Chamberlain 

ii. 284 


II. Lo Roy 

ii. 326 

V. Louisiana Ins. Co. 

ii. 402, 

Wack r. Soiber 

iii. 393 



777, 778 

Waddell r. Col. Ins. Co. 

ii. 389 

u. N. Y. Ins. Co. 


406, 407 

V. C'liuk 


u. Phoenix Ins. Co. 

ii. 3',!2 

Waddington u. liristow 

iii. 33 

V. Siierbnrno i 


; iii. 103 

('. Franeis 


299, 341 


V. Belcher 

i. 528 

c. Oliver 


. 36, 658 

Bank V. Lambert 

i. 182 

V. United Ins. 


ii. 358 

V. Long 


165, 229 

Wade V. Beasley 

iii. 342 

The ii. 


334, 335 

(,'. ])ll\vlillg 


700, 707 

Waldron v. Chase 

i. 528 

c. (Irime.s 

i. 341 

!'. Romain 

i. 528 

( . Haycoclt 

ii. 522 

Wales V. Webb 

iii. 120 

i\ Lindsay 

ii. 791 


ex parte 

iii. 460 

V. Simeon 


441, 442 

L>. Bank of Augusta 

i. 2sl 

!■. Wikou 


124, 125 

V. Bank of Jlont. Co. 

i. 235 

Wade's Case 


641, 645 

V, Bank of tiie State of Xcw 

Wadhain v. Marlowe 


452, 492 


. 69, 

2G7, 268 

Wadleigh ^. Klines 

ii. 791 

f. Bank of Washington 

iii. 120 

I/. PiUbbiiry 

ii. 72S 

(,-. Birch ii. 120 

; iii. 

243, 2,j9 

, . Veasio 


725, 727 

u. Boiling 

ii. 43 

Wadliii^^toii V. Gary 

ii. 26 

f. Burnell 

iii. 479 

Wadswortli c. Aieott 

ii. 134 

c. Campbell 

iii. 69 

V. Manninc^ 

iii. 352 

II. Constable 

iii. 11 

f. Pacific Ins. 


ii. 367 

V. Davis 



V. Sherman 

i. 386 

V. Ellis 

iii. 178 

Wagman ;>. lluag 

ii. 27 

V. Eyth 

i. 213 

Wagner v. Iloliirunncr 

iii. 169 

u. Pitts 

i. 163 

II. White 

i. 505 

u. Porbcs 

ii. 13 

Watronsellcr r. Snyder 

ii. 757 

u, Geiss 

i. 25S 

Wailing 0, Toll 

i. 3 1 1 

V. Hatton 

i. 504 

AVain f. Bailey 

i. 292 

V. Hill 

iii. 45-) 

V. Warlters i. 7 

; ii. 6 

; iii. 14, 
15, 16 

V, Hitchcock 
V. House 

iii. 220 

i. 2U2 

Wainewright v. Bland 

ii. 479 

V. Jefl^reys iii. 


386, 3S7 

Wainmaii /■. Kynian 

iii. 76, 7 7 

u. Leighton 


738, 739 

Wainwright v. ('rawford 

ii. 283 

u. Lide 

i. 267 

0. Webster 

i. 265 

; ii. 622 

u. Maitland 

ii. 374 

Waistell v. Atkinson 

ii. 639 

V. May 

i. 132 

Wait in re 

i. 207 

V. McCulloch 

1. 27, 187 

V. Baker 

i. 605 

; ii. 292 

11. McDonald 

i. 239 

V. Brewster 

ii. 624 

V. Merrill 

ii. 690 

V. Morris 

i. 382 

II. Moore 


229, 2.30 

Waite V. Barry 

ii. 692 

V. Nussey 

iii. 52 

V. Delesdernier 

ii. 615 

V. Perkins 

i. 436 

V. Foster 

i. 263 

V. Protection Ins. Co. 

n. 383 



Walker u. Reeves 

iii. 492 

Walsh V. Bishop 

i. 28 

V. Rostron 

iii. 298 

!;. Durkin 


726, 727 

V. Sargeaut ii. 56 ; iii. 269 

V. Farrand 

iii. 439 

u. Scliuyler 

iii. 223 

V. Gilmor 

ii. 693 

u. Scott 

i. 116, 118 

u. Homer 

ii. 412 

u. Sherman 

i. 512 

V. Medley 

i. 530 

V. Simpson i. 

298, 352, 3.M 

V. Nourse 

iii. 450 

0. Smith i. 58 

; iii. 173, 175 

V. Whitcomb 

i. 69, 72 

V. U. S. Ins. Co. 

ii. 324 

Walter v. Brewer 

ii. 181 

... Walker 

i. 428 

V. Dewey 

i. 503 

V. Witter 

ii. 608 

V. Harvey 

i. 264 

V. York & North 


V. Haynes 

ii. 621 

Railway Co. 

ii. 217, 237 

.;. Kirk 

i. 235 

Wall ii. Bry 

i. 278 

u. Ross i. 290, 


; iii. 488 

V. Charlict 

i. 440 

V. Smith 


272, 274 

V. East Kiver Ins. Co. 

ii. 430, 437 

Walters v. Munroe 

i. 279 

V. Howard Ins. Co. 

ii. 422 

V. Short 

ii. 723 

V. Lakin 

iii. 425 

Walton V. Bethune 

ii. 397 

V. Williamson 

u. 590, 597 

V. Dickerson 

ii. 56 

Wallace v. Agry 

ii. 625 

V. Dodson 

ii. 4 

V. Breeds 

i. 527 

V. Hanbury 

i. 37 

... Clark 

iii. 204 

u. Neptune, The 

ii. 343 

V De Pan 

ii. 408 

Walwyn v. St. Quintin 


278, 285 

II. Fieldon 

ii. 284 

Walworth v. Pool 

iii. 194 

V. Fouche 

ii, 545 

Wankford v. Fotherley 

ii. 72 ; iii. 30 

V. Hardacru 

iii. 470, 493 

V. Wankford 

ii. 715 

V. Ins. Co. 

ii. 453, 517 

Wansbrough v. Maton 

i. 512 

V. Jones 

i. 378 

Wape V. Hemenway 

ii. 337 

V. Kensall 

i. 26 

Waples V. Eames 

ii. 367 

V. Lewis 

i. 327 

V. Hastings 

i. 295 

V. IMcConnell 

i. 272, 273 ; 

Wai-burton v. Aken 

ii. 782 

iii. 514 

V. Lyttou 

i. 332 

V. McLaren 

i. 22 

V. Storr 

ii. 710 

V, Miner 

ii. 790 

Ward, ex parte 

iii. 508 

V. Patterson i. 

207 ; iii. 455 

V. Alien 

i. 268 

V. Rippon 

i. 366 

u. Ames 

ii. 34G 

V. Talbot 

iii. 226 

c. Blunt 

ii. 488 

V. Vigus 

ii. 183 

V. Buckingham 

iii. 373 

V. Woodgate 

iii. 238 

V. Byrne 

ii. 750 

Waller v. Cralle 

i. 393 

V. Dalton 


479, 512 

u. Drakeford 

ii. 798, 800; 

u. Evans 

ii. 610 

iii. 469, 495 

V. Fryer 

i. 444 

V. Hendon 

iii. 13 

V. Fuller 

iii. 475 

V. Horsfall 

iii. 304 

V. Green 

ii. 300 

V. King 

ii. 695 

V. Hunter 

i. 389 

V. Lacy ii. 631 

, 635 ; iii. 69 

V. 'Jenkins 


469, 473 

Waller v. Smith 

iii. 237 

V. Johnson i. 12, 29 

, 187; ii. 713 

Walley u. Montgomery 

ii. 291 

V. Morris 

iii. 455 

Wallingsford v. Wallingsford iii. 418 

u. Peck 

ii. 385 

Wallis f. Bastard 

ii. 7.34 

V. Shaw 

i. 528 

u. Day 

ii. 33, 750 

V. Tingley 

iii. 448 

V. Mease 

iii. 169 

V. Turner 

i. 236 

V. Truesdell 

ii. 794 

V. Uncorn 

ii. 699 

V. Wallis i 

430 ; ii. 504 

V. .Ward 

ii. 478 

Walls V. Atcheson 

i. 510 

0. Wardsworth 

iii. 269 

Wallwyn v, Coutts 

iii. 361 

u. Weeks 

iii. 181 

Walmesley b. Cooper 

ii. 7!5 

V. Whitney 

ii. 290 

Walpole V. Bridges 

ii. 158 

V. Willson 

ii. 271 

V. Cholmondeley 

ii. 491 

V. Wood 


353, 378 

d. Ewer 

ii. 416 

Ward's Case 

i. 513 

Walsh V. Adams 

i. 208 

Wardell v. Mourillyan 


183, 193 

V. Bailie 

ii. 13 

Warden v. Green 


162, 290 



Wardens, &c. of St. James Church v. 

Moore i. 247 

St. L. V. Kerwan ii. 679 
St. Saviour v. Bostock 
ii. 1.5 
Warder v. Horton ii. 372 

V. Tucker i. 437 

Wardwell v. Haight i. 71, 169 

Ware v. Adams ii. 7 

u. Gay ii. 126 

V. Hylton i. 398 

Wareliam Bank v. Burt ii. 160 

Warfield's Adm'rs v. Bos well iii. 109 
Waring v. Clarke ii. 310 

V. Cuiiliffe iii. 151, 152 

V. Favenck i. 63 ; ii. 743 

V. Knight iii. 4.53, 455 

V. Mason i. 547, 585, 592 

V. Smith ii. 719, 724 

V. Waring i. 383 

Wark V. Willard ii. 791 

Warlow V. Harrison i. 497 

Warmstrey v. Tanfield i. 224 

Warn v. Bickford ii. 740 

Warner v. Booge i. 444 

V. Cunningham i. 200 

V. Daniels i. 579 ; ii. 780, 784, 785 
V. Hitchins i. 505 

V. Martin i. 9 

V. McKay i. 62 

V. People iii. 530 

V. Van Alstine iii. 280 

Warren, in re i. 156, 212 ; iii. 460 

!;. AUnutt i. 273 

». Batchelder i. 219 

V. Buckminster i. 528 

V. Crabtree iii. 113, 120 

V. Flagg ii. 613 

V. Green ii. 690 

V. Howe iii. 331 

V. Layton ii. 723 

V. Lcland iii. 33 

V. Mains ii. 622, 645, 660 

V. Manuf. Ins. Co. ii. 406 

V. Merrifleld ii. 501 

V. Middlesex Ass. Co. ii. 433 
V. Ocean Ins. Co ii. 354 

V. Richardson iii. 379 

V. Saxby ii. 56 

u. Skinner ii. 686 

V. Stearns i. 453 

V. Thunder iii. 389, 416 

V. Wells ii. 738, 739 

V. Wheeler i. 226 ; ii. 552, 553 ; 
iii. 231 
V. Whitney i. 381, 435 

Warren Bank v. Sufifolk Bank ii. 104 

Warrender f. Warrender i. 357; ii. 571, 

Warrick v. Warrick i. 7 5 

Wawington ?) Furbor iii. 287 

Wart D. Smith i. 87 

Warters v. Herring ii. 676 

Warrick v. Bruce i. 314, 330, 452 ; iii. 33 
V. Scott ii. 352 

Warwicke v. iSIuakes ii. 621 

Washburn v. Bank of Bellows Falls 

i. 205, 207 

V. Goodman i 195, 198, 201 

V. Gould ii. 501 

V. Hale i. 345 

V. Jones ii. 151 

V. Ramsdell i. 255 

Washington Bank v. Brown iii. 220 

V. Lewis iii. 266 

V. Shurtleff iii, 103 

Bridge Co. u. The State 

iii. 533 
Co. Ins. Co. V. Colton 

ii. 789 
Co. Mat. Ins. Co. v. Mil- 
ler i. 249 
& Baltimore Turnpike 
Co. V. Baltimore & 
Ohio R. R. Co. iii. 536 
Ins. Co. V. Merchants 
Ins. Co. ii. 424 
Wason V. Rowe i. 582 ; ii. 493 
Watchman, The iii. 455 
Water's Appeal ii. 801 
Waterbury v. Graham iii. 16 
Watcrer v. Freeman iii. 217 
Waterhouse v. Skinner i. 537 
V. Waite iii. .503 
Waterman v. Barratt i. 256, 444 
V. Gilson ii. 46 
V. Hunt i. 214 
V. Johnson ii. 549, 558 
V. Meigs iii. 13, 55 
V. Robinson ii. 95 
Waters v. Alien ii. 358 
u. Bean i. 435 
V. Bridges ii. 690 
V. Brogden i. 41 
V. Comly iii. 426 
V. Earl of Tlianet iii. 92 
V. Howard ii. 71 ; iii. 351, 352 
V. Merchants Ins. Co. ii. 374, 446, 
V. Monarch Ins. Co. ii. 353, 361, 
V. Riley i. 30, 33 
V. Simpson ii. 26 
V. Taylor i. 72, 199 
!). To'mkins iii. 76, 77 
V. Towers iii. 184 
u. Travis i. 495 ; iii. 402 
Watei-ston v. Getchell iii. 249 
Watertown v. White i. 228 
Water Witch, The ii. 290 
Wathen v. Sandys i. 11 
Watkins v. Atkinson ii. 271 
V. Baird i. 3112 
V. Birch i. 530 



Watkins v. Ci'ouch 

i. 272 

V. Dunind 

ii. 443 

V. Eaiuus 

i. 454 

V. Hiilsto;id 

i. 435 

V. Hewlett 

iii. 295 

V. Hill 

ii. 624 

V. Holman 

ii. 798, 

iii. 37S 

V. Maule i. 241 ; iii. 374, 470, 495 

V. Peck ii. 794, 796 

o. Perkins iii. 21 

V. Stevens iii. 69, 85 

V. Viiice i. 48, 113 

Watkinson v. Bank of Penn. i. 169 

u. Inglesby ii. 618, 619, 681 

V. Lauglnon iii. 193 

Watling V. Horwood iii. 298 

Watrous V. Chajker i. 366 

Watson, ex parte i. 161 ; iii. 462 

V. Alcock ii. 5 

V. A. N. & B. Railway Co. 

ii. 215, 217; iii. 182 

V. Bennett i. 138 

V. Bourne iii. 440, 442, 443, 455 

V. Clark ii. 408 

V. Denton i. 591 

V. Henshel ii. 739 

V. Hetherinjjton ii. 640 

V. Ins. Co. of N. A. ii. 390 

V. King i. 71, 72 

V. Lyle iii. 88, 90 

V. Maine Ins. Co. i. 380 

V. Marston iii. 351, 416 

V. McLaren ii. 3; iii. 16 

V. Mercer iii. 552 

V. Moore iii. 169 

V. Murrell i. 117 

V. Pittsburg & Cleveland iii. 223, 


V. Poulson ii. 774 

V. Randall i. 441 

V. Reid iii. 416 

V. Spratley iii. 34 

V. Thelkeld i. 353, 355, 363 

V. Watson ii. 692 ; iii. 222 

V. Wilson- iii. 513 

Watt, The ii. 319 

V. Hoch ii. 630 

V. Morris ii. 406 

V Potter ii. 318, 336; iii. 197 

WattBrs V. Smith i. 439 

Watts V. Fraser iii. 1 78 

V. Friend iii. 55 

V. Rees ii. 738 

V. Van Ness ii. 760 

V. Waddle iii. 378 

Wattson V. Marks ii. 335 

Waugli V. Carver i. 166 

u. Cope iii. 76 

V. Riley i. 397 

Waul V. Kirkman iii. 14 

Waverley, The, v. Clements ii. 271 

Wave, The, u. Hyer ii. 318 

Way V. Speny i. 381, 382, 4.15 

Wayde v. Can- ii. 232 

Waydell v. Luer ii. 625 

Wayland v. Mosely ii. 290, 555 

Wayne w. The Gen. Pike ii. 271 

Woatherall v. Gcering iii. 479 

Weatherford v. Fishbaek ii. 774, 780 

Weatherhead v. Boyers iii 109 

Weatherhead's Lessee v. Baskerville 

ii. 558 
Weatherred v. Mays ii. "36 

Weatherstone v. Hawkins ii. 43; iii. 1C6 
Weaver v. Bachert ii. 63, 70 

V. Childress ii. 530 

V. Jones i. 517 

V. Lynch ii. 798 

V. Sessions ii. 679 

u. S. G. Owens, The ii. 265 

V. Ward iii. 461 

Webb in re ii. 141 

V Daggett iii. 426, 448 

V. Direct Lond. & Port. Rail- 
way Co. iii. 352, 354, 377,417 
V. Duckingfield i. 391 ; ii. 338 

II. Fairmanter ii. 664 

V. Fox ii. 95 ; iii. 467, 490 

V. Ingram ii. 699 

». Plummer i. 510; ii. .538, 547 
V. Portland Manuf. Co. iii. 218 

V. Protection Ins. Co. ii. 447 

V. Steele i. 227 

Webb's Case ii. 558 

Webber v. Ives ii. 706 

V. Maddox iii. 297, 307 

V. Tivill iii. 88 

Webster v. Bray i. 203 

V. Cobb i. 243 

V. Coffin i. 538 

V. De Tastet i. 86 ; ii. 339 

0. Ela iii. 14 

V. Enfield ii. 523 

V. McGinnis i. 347 

V. Seekamp ii. 333 

o. Spencer i. 131 

i;. Withey iii. 449 

V. Woodford i. 384 

V. Wyser ii. 688 

Weddall v. Capes iii. 344 

Wedderburn v. Ball ii. 406 

V. Wedderburn iii. 797 

Wedge V. Newlyn iii. 485 

Wedgwood v. Adams iii. 351 

Wedlake v. Hurley i. 221 

Weed V. Clarke ii. 1 1 

V. Ellis ii. 696 

V. Panama R. R. Co. ii. 220, 334 
V. Schenect. & Sar. R. Ro. Co. 

ii. 213, 216, 217 

V. Van Houten i. ii72 

Weeks o. Burton ii. 775 

V. Hull ii. 664 

V. Leighton i. 315, 320 ," ii. 36 



Weeks v. Tvlrald i. 475 

V. Wead i. 530 

Weibcrg v. The St. Oloff ii. 337 

Weilcr i', Hoch ii. 25 

Weimcr v. Clement i. 579 

Wtir V. Aberdeen ii. 406 ; iii. 322 

V. Weir il. 47 

Weisscr v. 15enison i. 265 

V. 'raitland ii. 516 

Waiting v. Nissley iii. 224 

Welby I.. W. C. R. Co. ii. 213 

VVoleh V. Hiiks ii. 201 

u. Mrtndcville i. 226 

V. Myer.s iii. 490 

V. \Yliittemore i. 571 

Welchniiin r. Sturgis i. 131 

Weld !•. Cntlcr i. 527 

V. H:uI!eJ ii. 654 

Weldon r. Buck i. 288 

Welford o. Beazley iii. 4,8 

t'. Liddel iii. 89 

Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway ii. 794, 

799, 801 

AVeller v. B.akcr iii. 219 

Welles V. Boston Ins. Co. ii. 448 

V. (.''owlcs iii. 34 

Welloslcy ('. Wrlle.slcy iii. 369 

Wellini^ton r. Mackintosh ii. 70S 

Wellman /-. Soiitliard iii. 71 

Wells V. Abcrnethy iii. 205, 206 

V. Arehcr ii. 482 

V. Banister i. 470 

V. Cooke ii. 707 

V. GirlinLj iii. 52:; 

V. Hatch i. 116 

V. Horton ii. 44; iii. 38 

V. Jewett ii. 775 

V. Mart iii. 507 

V. Jb'Idrum ii. 344 

V. N. York Cent. R. R. Co. ii. 223 

V. Tadgett ii. 61, 70 

V. Pari;er iii. 460 

V. Phila. Ins. Co. ii. 363 

V. Pierce ii. 800 

V. Porter i. 524 

V. Ragland iii. 94 

v. Smitii iii. 383 

V. Steam Nav. Co. ii. 170 

V. Trcgusan ii. 514 

V. Watling iii. 219 

V. Williams i. 398; ii. 360 

ti. Wright ii. 514 

Welman, in re iii, 504 

Welsh V. Hole iii. 269 

V. Lawrence ii. 230 

V. Speakraan i, I7i; 

f. Usher iii. 281, 477 

V. Welsh iii. 507 

Wendell v. Van Rensselaer ii. 79ii 

Wennall r. Adncv i. 233 

Wennan v. Tiic .Mohawk Ins. Co. iii. 99 

Weutworth v. Bu'leu i. 448 ; ii. 683 

Wentworth v. Cock i. 1.31 

V. Day ii. 96; iii. 240 

I'. Outhwaite i. 598 

Werner v. Humphreys i. 131 

West V. Ashdown ii. 26 

i'. Cunningham i. 577, 584 

V. Cutting i. 593 

V. Foreman i. 249 

V. The Lady Franklin ii. 272 

V. Moore i. 316 

u. Newton i. 5.'.2 

V. Pritchard iii. 205 

V. Prvce iii. 515 

V. Skip i, 149, 207 

I'. Tilgliman ii. 797 

V. \\Vntworth iii. 197, 198, 206 

V. Wheeler i. 352 

West Branch Bank v. Morehead ii. 630 

Westbury v. Aherdein ii. 770 

A\'esterlo v. Evertson i. 164 

Westerman o. ileans • ii. 660 

Western v. Gcnessee Mut. Fire Ins. 

Co. ii. 583 

!>. Russell iii. 17, 361, 382, 409 

R. R. V. Babcock iii. 4M, 415 

Western .Stai;e Co. ,-. Walker i. 177, 193 

Wcstfall i\ Par.^ons i. 36 ; iii. 22 

West Feliciana R. R. Co. v. Stock- 

ett iii. 557 

Westlake o. St. Lawrence Ins. Co. 

ii. 457, 461 

Westley r. Clarke i. 30 

Westmeath v. Salisbury i. 360 

!•. Westmeath i. 3.')7 

Weston V. Barton ii. 19 

V. Chamberlain i. 36 

u. Davis i. 470 

t. Enies ii. 352 

t. Penniman ii. 265, 275 

V. Wriuht i. 78 

West River Bridge Co. ;>. Dix iii. 536, 

537, 538, 539, 540, 542 

Westwood V. Bell ii. 743 ; iii. 267 

M'estzinthus, jn re i. 608 

Wctlieivll v. Jones "" ii. 745 

c. Langston i. 23 

Wctbevill c. Xcilson i. 584, 586 

\\'ethcy p. Andrews i. 261 

Wetniore v. Baker ii. 229 

i: Wells ii. 61 

Wetzel V. Spon^ler's Ex'rs ii. 25 

Weyland v. Elkins ii. 213 

Weymouth i'. Boyer iii. 285 

Wb'allon i\ Kauti'man ii. 592 

Wharton v. Isiing ii. 694, 696, 698 

V. McKenzie i. 297 

V. OHara i. 462 

V. Walker i. 219, 221 

V. Wharton iii. 346 

V. Williamsim i. 285 

Wheatley v. Low i. 447 ; ii 100 

V. Purr iii 36" 



Wheatley v. Williams iii. 90, 348 

Wheaton v. East i. 295, 326 

V. Hibbard ii. 747; iii. 128 

!'. Wilmarth i. 283 

Wheeler v. Borinau iii. 467 

V. Bowen iii. 482 

V. Braraali iii. 490, 491 

I/. Collier i. 497; iii. 14 

fc. Eastern State, Tlio ii. 312 

c. Field i. 271,274 

V. Fisli iii. ,513 

V. Guild i. 242 

V. Kraggs ii. 622, 643, 645 

V. Moore i. 249 

V. Neviiis i. 52 

V. Nowbold iii. 237 

V. Raymond ii. 608, 745 

V. Rice i. 191 

V. Russell i. 458; ii. 746, 747 

V. Spencer ii. 628, 757 

V. Stone i. 245 

V. Strobe i. 249 

V. Sumner ii. 259, 275 

V. Thompson ii. 339 

V. Train i. 530 

V. Van Wart i. 195 

V. Wasliburn ii. 26 

V. Webster iii. 98 

V. Wlieelcr ii. 618 

Wheeling Ins. Co. v. Morrison ii. 439 

Wheelock v. Doolittlo iii. 81 

c\ Freeman ii. 721 

V. Wlieelwi-ight ii. 127 

Wheelwright v. Beers iii. 193 

V. Depevster i. 520 ; ii. 278 

V. Moore ii. 6 

Whelan v. Whelan i. 431 

Wheldale v. Partridge i. 135 

Wheldon v. Mathews iii. 298, 345, 346 

Whelpdale v. CooUson iii. 465 

Whiclicote v. Lawrence i. 87 ; iii. 465 

Whillington v. Polk iii. 531 

Whipple V. Chamberlain Manuf. Co. 

iii. 218 

V. Cumberland Manuf. Co. 

iii. 165 

V. Dow i. 304 

V. Stevens iii. 73, 83 

V. Walpole iii. 172, 174 

Whisler v. Hicks iii. 228 

Whiston i: Stodder ii. 570, 5S3, 586 

Whitakcr v. Brown i. 181, 182 

u. Cone ii. 767 

V. Sumner i. 569 

t,. Whitakcr i. 341 

V. Williams ii. 796 

Tlio ii. 322 

Whitbeck c. Whitbeck i. 444 

Whitbread v. Bj-ockhurst iii. 394 

Whitchurch v. Bevis iii. 390, 391, 394 

Whitcomb V. Jacob iii. 285 

u. Preston ii. 692 

Whitcomb v. Rood 

iii. 287 

u. Williams 

ii. 624 

V. Whiting 

iii. 80, 83 

White V. Bailey 

iii. 95 

V. Banlcs 

iii. 426 

V. Bluett 

i. 434, 440 

V. Boulton 

ii. 220 

V. Bradshaw 

ii. 550 

u. Brown 

ii. 440, 521) 

u. Canfield 

iii. 436 

V. Chambers 

i. 4116 

V. Chapman 

i. 99; iii. 193 

V. Crew 

iii. 11 

V. Cuddon 

iii. 400, 406 

V. Cushing 

i. 382 

V. Daedalus, The 

ii. 281 

V. Damon 

iii. 351 

u. Demilt 

i. 448, 451 

f. Dinglcy 

ii. 713 

);. Dougherty 

i. 601 

!'. Fo.x 

ii. 721 

V. Franklm Bank 

ii. 746, 747 

V. Gainer 

iii. 245 

u. Gilford 

i. 72 

u. G. W. R'y Co. 

ii, 237 

V. Hale 

iii. 81 

V. Hancock 

ii. 514 

V. Holford 

ii. 700 

V. Humphrey 

ii. 141 

V. Jordan 

ii. 686 

u. Lady Lincoln 

ii. 88, 100 

(/. Mann 

ii. 673 

I'. Miller 

ii. 790 

V. Moscley 

iii. 185, 223 

V. Murphy 

i. 169 

IK Mutual Ins. Co. 

ii. 425, 4.37 

V. North 

iii. 310 

V. Oliver 

ii. 59, 524 

V. Palmer 

i. 386 

V. Parker 

i. 135 

u. Patten 

ii. 791 

V. Perlej- 

ii. 651 

V. Proctor 

i. 113; iii. 11 

V. Reed 

ii. 22 

V. Skinner 

i. 64, 69 

V. Springfield Bank 

i. 259 

V. Stoddard 

i. 270 

V. Trottet 

i. 88 

u. Webb 

iii. i"2 

V. Westpori Cotton Man. Co. i 43 

V. White ii 

605 ; iii. .■■ /8 

V. AYhitman 

ii. 727, 7.'8 

V. Wliitney 

iii. 226, 2C8 

V. Williams 

iii. 278 

a. Winnisimmet Co. 

ii. 169,177, 


V. Wright iii. 

112, 113, 140 

Whitebread, ex parte 

iii. 280 

Whitefield v. Longfellow 

i. 393 

V. McLeod 

i.402, 584 

Whitehead o. Anderson 

i. 597 

i,. Cade 

ii. 737 



"WTiitehead v. Greethera i. 447; ii. 101 

V. Lord iii. 93 

V. Price ii. 427 

u. Beddiok i. 54 

u. Tuckett i. 40, 43, 57 

V. Vaiighan iii. 266 

V. Walker i. 256, 288 ; iii. 93 

Whrtehouse v. Biekford ii. 797 

V. Frost i. 608 

Whitehurst u. Fayetterille Ins. Co. 

ii. 429, 447 
Wiiite River Turnpike v. Vt. Central 

Ii. R. Co. iii. 536, 540 

White's Ex'rs i'. Commonwealth i. 131 

Whitesell v. Crane ii. 256 

Whiteside v. Jennings iii. 231 

Whitesides r. Oorris i. 343 

V. Latferry i. 202 

«. Thurlkill ii. 160, 172 

Whitestown r. Stone i. 454 

Whitfield V. CoUingwood ii. 72.') 

r. Le Despencer ii. 144 

Whitford y. Panama R. R. Co. ii. 230 

Whiting ('. Brastow i. 513 

c. Earlo i. 310 

v. Independent Ins. Co. ii. 371, 


Whitley v. Loftns i. 315 ; ii. 50 

Whitlock V. Dufficld i. 500; iii. 368 

V. Underwood iii. 309 

Whitlocke v. Walton iii. 99 

Whitman, ex parte iii. 467 

V. Freese i. 582 

V. Leonard i. 198 

Whitmarsh v. Cliarter Oak Ins. Co. 

ii. 424 

r. Hall i. 315; ii. 37 

V. Walker iii. 31, 34 

Whitmore v. Coats ii. 536 ; iii. 209 

V. Gilmour i. 62 

V. Steamboat Caroline ii. 182 

Whitney v. Allaire ii. 781 

V. Bigelow iii. 85 

V. Cochran iii. 57 

V. Dutch i. 323 

V. Ferris i. 175 

V. Groot ii. 23 

u. Haven ii. 403, 412 

V. Hitchcock iii. 174 

V. Movers i. 509 

V. N. Y. Fire Ins. Co. ii. 298 

V. Spencer ii. 676 

u. Stearns i. 429, 430 

V. Sutton i. 581 

V. Whiting iii. 4 13 

Whiton V. iloars ii. 29 

Whitridge !>. Dill ii. 311,312 

Whittaker v. Izod iii. 346 

V. Mason ii. h31 

Whittemoro v. Adams ii, 590 

u. Cntter iii. 176 

V Gibbs iii, 51 

Whitten v. Fnller iii. 206 

V. Peacock i. 243 

Whittier v. Groffara i. 270 

Whittingham v. Hill i. 313 

II. Thomburgh ii. 402 

Whittinghara's Case i. 329 

Whittington, ex parte iii. 492 

V. Farmer's Bank ii. 740 

Whittle I'. Skinner i. 229, 436, 445 

Whittlesey v. Dean i. 280 

Whitton B. Commerce, The ii. 344 

V. Smith i. 179, 184, 196, 197 

Whitwell V. Harrison ii. 367 

V. Johnson i. 280 

Whitworth v. Adams iii. 146 

V. Davis iii, 479 

Whoregood v. AVhoregood i. 360 

Whvwall !;. Champion i. 314 

Wifiert V. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. ii. 185 

Wick V. Samuel Stong, The ii. 271 

Wickens v. Evans ii. 750 

Wicker v. Norris ii. 664 

Wickes V. Caulk ii. 722 

Wicknam p. Hawker ii, 511 

Wicks V. Chew i. 416 

u. Got^erlcy iii, 1 19 

Widsciy V. Haskell iii. 425, 426 

Wiyg i'. Shuttleworth i. 458 

V. Wigg i. 75 

Wiggin V. Coffin iii. 166, 175 

u. Peters ii. 664 

V. Suffolk Ins. Co. ii. 371 

_ V. Tudor i. 26, 187 

i. 183 

V. Hathaway ii. 144 

Wigglesworth v. Dallison i. 505, 510 ; 

ii. 537, 547 

u. Steers i. 384; iii. 417 

Wight V. Geer ii. 759 

u. Shuck iii. 117 

Wightman v. Chartman i. 11 

V. Cuates ii. 60, 62 

u. Wightman ii. 81, 595 

Wigmore v. Jay ii, 43 

Wigmore and Wells' Case i. 11 

Wilbert V. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. 

iii 184 

Wdbour V. Turner i. 242, 262 

Wilbur V. Crane i. 439 

V. Tobey ii. 397 

Wilhurn v. Larkin i. 54 

Williy V. Phinney i. 165 

Wilcocks V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 378 

Wilcox V. Howland i. 393 ; iii. 151 

V. Hunt ii. 570, 088 

V. Parmelee ii. 216 

V. Plumnier iii. 92 

V. Roath i. 32.1, 324 

V. Siriulctary i. 191 

u. Wilco.x ii. 696 

V. Wood ii. 538 

Wild V. Harris ii. 67 



Wild V. 'Williams 

ii. 617 

Wilde V. Arms by 

ii. 723 

V. Gibson 

iii. 415 

V. Vinor 

ii. 711 

V. Waters 

i. 513 

Wilder v. Kecler 

i. 212 

V. Winne 

iii. 427 

Wildes V. Savage 

i. 267; ii. 13 

Wildman, ex parte 

iii. .512 

Wilds !■. Hudson River R. R. Co. ii. 231 

AVilclmina Eleanora, The ii. 306 

Wiley V. Knight iii. 449 

u. Moor ii. 724 

Wiley V. Shoemak ii. 652 

Wilh'ite I'. Roberts ii. 767 

Wilkes V. Ferris iii. 43, 426 

«. Jacks i. 271 

V. Lion iii. 220 

V. Wilkes i. 357 

Wilkie V. Gcddes ii. 406 

V. Roosevelt iii. 117 
Wilkins t>. Oasev ii. 285 ; iii. 479, 494 

V. Fry " iii. 467, 492 

V. Pearce i. 180, 193 

V. Reed i. 65 

Wilkinson, ex parte iii. 465, 469 

V. Adam ii. 501 
u. Byers i. 439 ; ii. 686 

V. Candlish i. 181 

V. Coverdale ii. 99 

V. Diggel iii. 457 

V. Gaston ii. 664 

V. Godcfroy ii. 629 

V. Hall i. 25 

V. Henderson i. 202 

u. Jett i. 161 

V. Leland iii. 528 

V. Lindo i. 27 
V. Scott i. 430 ; ii. 790 

V. Torkington iii. 368 
V. WiUdnson i. 337 ; iii. 493 

a. Wilson ii. 284 

V. Wright i. 369 

Wilks w. Back i. -54, 112 
V. Davis ii. 708; iii. 377 

V. Smith ii. 529 

Willan V. Willan i. 500 

Willard v. Bridge ii. 142 

V. Dorr ii. 334 

u. Fox ii. 736 

u. Hewlett i. 323 

V. Perkins i- 533 

V. Reeder iii. 113 

K.Rice iii. 199 

V. Sperry ii. 620 

V. Stevens ' i. 580 
V. Stone i. 330, 452 ; ii. 62 

u. Twitchell iii. 224 

Willats V. Kennedy i. 431, 440 

Willes, ex parte ' iii. 460 

V. Glover i. 74 ; ii. 403 

Willet V. Atterton iii. 64 

Willet ?). Blanford i. 2Q1 

u. Chambers i. 185 

Willctz 11. Green ii. 40 

Willettz V. Buffalo &, Rochester R. 

R. Co. ii. 231 

Willev !'. Parratt iii. 298 

V. W. C. Rv. Co. ii. 218 

William BecUford,'Tlie ii. 319 

Hannington, The ii. 319 

Lushington, The ii. 322 

The ii. 93, 34 U 

& Emmolinc ii. 283 

Williams, ex parte i. 199, 201, 202 ; iii. 

in re ii. 690 

V. Alexander i. 444 

V. Archer iii. 206 

V. Ash i. 415, 416, 420 

V. Bacon iii. 11 

a. Bank of Michigan i. 214 

V. Bank of U. S. i. 274 

V. Bartholomew iii. 399 

V. Barton i. 93; iii. 180 

V, Branson ii. 161 

i;. Brown i. 409, 410 ; iii. 427 
I/. Cliester&Holyliead Rail- 
way i. 139 
r. Commercial Exch. Co. i. 418 
V. Crary ii. 742 
V. Curde iii. 175 
u. Dakin iii. 160, 162 
V. Dclafield ii. 405 
V. Donaldson i. 368 
■V. Dormer ii. 601 
V. Dyde i. 382 
V. Everett i. 221 
V. Field iii. 232 
V. Fowler i. 363 
V. Gerry iii. 347 
V. Gilchrist ii. 742 
V. Gilman ii. 537, 545 
c. Given i. 521 
V. Grant ii. 161, 172 
V. Gridley iii. 78 
V. Griffith ii. 630 ; iii. 66, 69, 73 
V. Hance iii. 136 
o. Harrison i. 316 
V. Healey ii. 532 
V. Henshaw i- 164 
V. Hide ii. 672 
V. HiU iii 177 
V. Holcombe ii. 129 
V. Houghtaling ii. 635 
B. Howard iii. 374 
<,. Hutchinson i. 309 
V. James iii. 309 
V. Jenny Lind, The ii. 322 
V. Jones i. 147 ; ii. 591 ; iii. 100, 
i;. Kennebec Ins. Co. ii. 384 
v. Landman iii- 39.3 

' 0. Leper iii. 25, 27 



Williams i-. Little i. 259 

V. Littlefield i. 98 

V. Lloyd ii. 672 

I'. Loiitlon Ass. Co. ii. 331 

u. London Com. Ex. Co. ii. 685 

V. Marshall i. 88 

V. Maybcc i. 326 

V. .Mayor of Annapolis iii. 3.)5 

V. llillington i. 497 

17. Moor i. 313 

V. Moore i. 296, 329 

V. Morris ii. 534, 535 

V. Mijstym iii. 218 

V. N. E. Ins. Co. ii. 352, 401, 

' 403, 404, 422, 432 

6,. Nichols ii. 211,335 

V. Oates ii. 594, 597 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. ii. 745 

!•. Paul ii. 764 

„. Planters Bank iii. 533 

c. Prince i. 356 

V. Rawlinson ii. 633, 634 

V. Roberts iii. 278 

V. Roser i. 569 

>.•. Slice ii. 412,414 

V. Sherman iii. 103 

V. vSims i. 248 

I). Smith ii. 299, 384, 386 ; 

iii. 94 

V. SpafFord i. 585 

V. Storrs iii. 104 

V. Stratton iii. 477 

V. Suffolk Ins. Co. ii. 329, 374, 


V. Taylor ii. 221, 223 

V. Thorp ii. 4S2 

V. Vermeule iii. 468 

V. Walsby ii. 617; iii. 468 

V, AVaring i. 273 

f. Wtiitinf^ ii. 579 

1-. Williams ii. 85, 697 ; iii. 108 

V. Wilson i. 154 ; ii. 693 

V. W'inans i. 267 

V. Woods i. 83 

V. Younr; i. 527 

Williams Colle'.;c i<. Danforth i. 455 

Williamson r. liarrctt ii. 314; iii. 183 

V. Dirlcens iii. 5119 

V. Henley ii. 766 

f. .Missouri, The ii. 271 

I'. Taylor ii. 43 

■I'. Wilson i. 199 

Willing V. Peters i. 381 

Willingham >'. ,Ioyee iii. 474, 498 

WiUings r. Hli.^ht ii. 267 

u, Coiisequa i. 586 ; ii. 570 

Willion V. Berkley i. 397 ; ii. 506 

Willis, ill re iii. 506 

V. Bank of England i. 77 

u. DcCastro ii. 715 

u. Dyson i. 180 

V. Evans iii. 355 

Willis V. Freeman iii. 494 

u. Green i. 282 

V. Hall i. 182 

V. Long Island R. R. Co. ii. 220, 

230, 233 

V. Newliam iii. 77 

V. Poekham i. 437 

V. Poole ii. 466, 468 

V. Twambly i. 229, 321 

V. Willis i. 526, 537 

Willison V. Watkins i. 507 

Willoughby r. Backhouse ii. 201 

f. Comstock iii. 109 

V. Horridgo ii. 169, 231 

Wills V. Cowpcr ii. 571 

r. Xoot' iii, 310 

V. Stradling iii. 393 

Wilmer v., The ii. 283 

Wilmburst v. Bowker i. 598, 606 

Wilmot V. Hurd i 580 ; ii. 740 

V. Smith ii. 57 

Wilraott V. Smith ii. 615, 640 

Wilson, ex parte iii. 460, 471 

in re iii. 452 

I'. Alexander ii. 622 

V. Andcrton ii. 205 

V. Appleton iii. 96 

II. Backhouse i. 582 

V. Balfour iii. 243, 273 

u. Baptist Education Societv 

'i. 452 

V. Barker i. 53 

V. Barnett i. 517 

V. Beddard iii. 10 

t. Bowden 1. 178 
f. Brett i. 85 ; ii. 93, 107 

r. Broom iii. 209 
f. Burr i. 116, 363; ii. 56 

V. Butler ii. 771 

V. Calvert iii. 73 

(/. Clements i. 267 

u. Cod man ii. 734 

V. Coffin i. 114 

V. Conine i. 208 

V. Curzon i. 146 

V. Day iii. 484 

u. Dickson ii. 334 

V. Ducket ii. 402 

i\ Ferguson i. -T/e 

V. Foote 1. 243 ; ii. 28 

V. Forbes iii. 226 

1-. Gen. Ins. Co. ii. 378 

V. Gcncssee Ins. Co. ii. 659 

v. George iii. 216 

V. Greenwood i. 195, 199 

V. Guyton ii. 96 ; iii. 241 

V. Hamilton ii. 169 

c. Hardcsty iii. 126 

... Hart i. 63 

V. Hendwson ii. 723 
V. Herkimer Co. Ins. Co. ii. 430, 



Wilson V. Hill 
V. Hirst 
V. Holmes 
V. Hooper 
V. Hudson 
V. Justice 
V. Kennedy 
c. Knott 
V. Lazief 

ii. 355, 439, -150 
ii. 633 
i. 252 
i. 530 
i. 132 
iii. 306 
iii. 300, 305, 313 
ii. 131 
i. 290 

V. Little ii. 114; iii. 205, 206 

V. Lntwidge i. 264 

V. Marsh i. 589 

11. Miirtin ii. 368 ; iii. 36, 333 

V. Mary, The ii. 345 

V. Mihier i. 37 

V. Mushett i. 358 

u. Oatman iii. 223 

V. Oiiio, The ii. 339 

V. Poulter i. 52 

V. Ray iii. 523 

r. Robertson ii. 549 

V. Russell iii, 421 

V. Smyth i. 361 

V. Spencer iii. 230 

u. Swabey i. 284 

V. Trumbull Ins. Co. ii. 419 

V. Tunimnn i. 49, 53 

V. United lus. Co. ii. 380 

V. Vysar iii. 305 

V. Wadleigh ii. 615 

V. Wilson i. 113; ii. 778; iii. 418 
u. Y. & M. Railroad Co. ii. 88 
V. York, Newcastle & Ber- 
wick Railway Co. ii. 217 ; 
iii. 183 
V. Young i. 117; ii. 689 

Wilt V. Franklin iii. 426 

u. Vickers iii. 165 

Wilton V. Falmouth ii. 579 

V. Harwood ii. 796 ; iii. 392 

Wiltshear y. Cottrell i. 512 

Wiltshire v. Sims i. 58, 85 

Winans v. Huston ii. 713 

Winch V. Fenn iii. 134, 508 

V. liceley i. 226, 227 ; iii. 468, 479 
V. Sanders ii. 698 

V. Winchester iii. 357, 398 

Winchendon v. Hatfield i. 399 

Winchester, ex parte iii. 505 

«. Union Bank i. 131 

Windham v. Windham i. 500 

Bank i'. Norton i. 272 

Windham's Case i. 18, 500 ; ii. 506 

Windle v. Andrews i. 286 

Windsor, Dean and Chapter of v. 

Gover i. 138 

Wing V. Angrare ii. 485 

V. Clark i. 537 

V. Dunn iii. 119 

V. Harvey ii. 473 

V. Hurlburt i. 363 

r. Mill 1.471 

Wingato v. Dail iii. 407 

V. Smith iii. 199 

Wingo 1-. McDowell i. 248 

Winks V. Hassall iii. 479 

Vi'um u. Albert iii. 390 

V. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 386 

V. Southgate ii. 36 

Winne r. Reynolds iii. 379 

Winship r. Bank of U. S. i. 182, 184 

V. Bass ii. 715 

Winslow V. Crocker i. 345 

V. Dawson iii. 1 1 6 

1-. Mcrcliants Ins. Co, i. 51 1, 57 1 

v. Patten ii. 506 

V. Tarbox i. 569 ; ii. 280 

Winson ;■. McLellan i. 570 

Winsor v. Dillaway ii. 554 

y. Giii;gs i. h5 

V. Loml)ard i. 577, 582 

V. McLellan ii. 275 

Winsted B;uik r. Spencer li. 790 

Winston v. Ewing i. 207 

V. Westfeldt i. 254 

Winstonc ;■. Linn ii. 51 

Winter v. Branch Bank ii. 24 

V. Delaware Ins. Co. ii. 413 

t. Garlick ii. 697 

V. Jones iii. 528, 548 

V. Kretchman iii. 469 

V. Munton ii. 691 

V. Pcrratt ii. 558 

r. Wliite ii. 691 

Wintermute r. Clarke ii. 145, 154 

Winteistoke Hundred's Case i. 20 

Wintlu-op V. Carlton ii. 586, 727 

V. Union Ins. Co. ii. 412, 414, 


Wintle V. Crowther i. 82 

Wintringliam v. Lafoy iii. 420 

Wise V. G. W. R'y (.'o. ii. 241 

V. Metcalle i ,503 

u. St. Louis Mar. Ins. Co. 361, 363, 

369, 370 

V. Wilson ii. 51 

Wiseman v. Chiapella i. 266 

V. Roper i. 438 

V. Vandeput i. 595, 598 

Wiswall V. Brin.'ion i. 105 

Wiswould, ex parte iii. 460 

AVitherow v. Witlicrow ii. 524 

Withers v. Atkinson ii. 724 

V. Bircham i. 14, 15, 25 

V. Lyss i. 526 ; iii. 43, 488 

V. Reynolds ii. 518, 522 

v.. Weaver i. 236 

Witherspoon v. Anderson iii. 220 

V. Duhoso i. 344 

Withington v. Herring i. 42, 58 

Withy V. Cottle iii. 357, 304, 368 

Witt W.Welsh i. 317 

Witte II. Derl)y Fishing Co. i. 141 

Witter V. Richards i. 206 



Wittcrs':i'im v. Lady Carlisle iii. 90 

Wodell V. CoHgeshall i. 309, 310 

"Wodi-op !', Wai-d i. 212 

Wocvt V. Jenkins iii. 172 

Woleott V. Eagle Ins. Co. ii. 561, 363, 

369, 370 

ii. Van Santvoord i. 272, 273 

Wolf c. Summers iii. 250 

Wolfe V. Frost iii. 34 

V. Whiteman iii. 90 

Woifersbcrger c. Bucher ii. 738 

Wolff V. Koppel i. 92 

Wolleu\vel)ber /;. Ketterlinus i. 270 

Wolnier's i. 52 

Wolton V. Gavin ii. 758 

Wolverton c. Laccy ii. 339 

Wohlonberg v. Lagomau ii. 703 

Wood V. Adeock ii. 690 

!•. .Vker.s ii. 738 

V. A. R. R. Co. i. 52 

V. Ashe i. 577, 579 

t;. Bell ii. 258, 274, 519 

V, Benson i. 455 ; iii. 18 

V. Bodwell ii. 624 

II. Comp. of Copper Mines ii. 529, 


1!. Corl i. 276 

V. Curling ii. 139 

V. Pay ii. 789 

V. Dodgson iii. 507 

«. Dudley i. 569 

1^. Earl ii. 694 

V. Goodridge i. 112 

V. GriHith ii. 695 ; iii. 355, 378, 

401, 406, 416 

V, Grimwood iii. 1 25 

V. Hartford Ins. Co. ii. 422, 423 

V. Hitchcock ii. 644 

i;. Hubbell i. 505 

V. Jones i. 600 

V. Leadbitter ii. 511 

u, Lee ii 560 

V. Lincoln Ins. Co. ii. 385,387,391 

V. Manley ii. 634 

V. McCann ii. 755 

V. Morowood iii. 200 

V. Mytton i. 246 

0. Ninirod ii. 338 

V. N. E. Ins. Co. ii. 366, 376 

V. O'Kellcy i. 168 

V. Partridge i. 227, 228 

V. Patterson iii. 397 

u. Perry i. 227; ii. 555 

</. Pugh i. 287 

V. Koach i. 601 

V. Robbins iii. 104 

V. Savage iii. 29 

V. Smith i. 581 

17. Watkinson ii. 588 

V. Warren i. 256 

V. Wood ii. 541 

V. W/lds iii. 76 

Wood !i. Yoatman iii. 274 

and Foster's Case i. 522 

Woodard v. Herbert iii. 506 

Woodbridge v. Allen iii. 69, 443 

0. Wright ii 590 

Woodburn v. Mosher iii. 449 

Woodcock V. Bennet i. 493 ; iii. 402, 403 

V. Nuth i. 500 

V. Oxford & Worcester R. 

Ii. Co. ii. 25 

Woodcnd v. Paulsbury ii. 582 

Wooderman v. Baldock i. 5.30 

Woodos V. Dennett i. 69 

Woodfin f. Hooper iii. 550 

Woodfolk V. Blount iii. 283 

Woodford V. MiClenaban i. 60 

Woodhouse v. Meredith i. 86 

V. Shepley ii. 60, 64 
WoodhuU V. Wagner iii. 440, 441, 442, 


Woodin V. Burfurd i. 41, 60, 74 

I'. Foster i. 283 

Woodleife r. Curties ii. 158 

Woodlile's Case ii. 158 

Woodman v. Chapman i. 344 

I'. Eastman i. 271, 279 

V. Hubbard ii. 763 

V. Thurston i. 277 

Woodrop-Sims, The ii. 308 

Woodruff V. Col. Ins. Co. ii. 350 

V. Dobbins ii. 681 

V. Fox iii. 524 

c. Hinman i. 456 

u. Logan i. 315 ; ii. 50 

V. Richardson iii. 175 

V. Robb iii. 420 

V. Trapnall iii. 548 

V. Woodruff ii. 85 

Woods y. Blodgett i. 117 

u. Carlisle ii. 738 

V. Dennett ii. 750 

V. Dcvin ii. 179, 255 

V. Farmare iii. 392 

V. Masterman ii. 462 

V. Keed iii. 461 

V. Ridlev i. 128, 247 

V. Russe'll ii. 259, 274, 519 

Woodstock Bank v. Downer ii. 29 

Woodward w. Darcy ii, 715 

V. Seeley ii. 511 ; iii. 34 

V. Thacher i. 592; iii. 211 

Woodworth v. Downer i. 194 

Wooland «. Crowther iii. 481 

Wooldridge v. Wilkins i. 149, 151 ; 

iii. 223 

Wooley V. Batte i. 37 

V. Chamberlin ii 794 

V. Clements i. 283 

Woolf i'. Beard ii. 230 

0. Claggett ii. 406,413 

WooUam v. Hearn iii. 355, 389, 398 

Woolsey v. Crawford i. 288 



Wooten V. Miller i. 456 I 

V. Read ii. 524 

V. Shirt i, 516 

Wope V. Hemenway ii. 345 

Worcester o. Green ii. 787 

Corn Exch. Co. i. 192 

M. I. u. Harding ii. 799 

Word V. Caviii i. 576 

V. Vance i. 316 

Wordell v. Smith i. 530 

Wordsworth v. Willan ii. 232 

Wormack ;•. Rogers i. 436 

Worinley i'. Lowry i. 259 

Worms !'. Storey ' ii. 302 

Worral, in re iii. 518 

V Ak worth ii. 697 

Worrall v. Ghoen ii. 719 

V. Munn i. 52 ; iii. 10, 13 

Worrell's Appeal i. 123, 135, 136 

Worsely v. he Mattos iii. 484 

Worsley v. Scarborough i. 25 ; iii. 283 

!;. Wood i. 461 ; ii. 352, 461 

Worthington v. Grimsditch iii. 77 

V. Warrington iii. 229, 333 

('. Wigley ii. 686 

V. Young iii. 221 

Worthy v. Patterson iii. 21 1 

Wotton V. Cooke i. 25- 

Wray v. Milestone i. 164 

Wren v. Kirton i. 87, 89 

V. Pearce iii. 16 

Wrexham v. Huddleston i. 200 

Wright V. Bigg i. 481 

V. Burroughes i. 515 

I'. Butler ii. 620 ; iii. 93 

V. Canipliell iii. 487 

- V. Coblcigh ii. 735 

... Comms. of Rev. iii. 329 

V. Crookes i. 52 

V. Dame iii. 280 

V. Dannah iii. U 

V. Deklvne ii. 729 

V. Fail-field ui. 469, 498 

V. Gihon ii. 51 

V. Goddard ii. 638 

V. Hart i. 561 

V. Hazen ii. 787 

V. Hooker i. 182 

D.Howard iii. 381,401 

i;. Hunter ii. 265 

u. Laing ii. 630; iii. 124 

V. Lawes i. 603 

V. McAlexander iii. 108 

V. Morley ii. 5 ; iii. 482 

V. Morse ii. 553 

V. Natt ii. 6 

V. Orient. Ins. Co. ii. 408 

V. Post i. 21 

V. Proud i. 86 

V. Reed ii. 622 

W.Riley iii. 313 

». Russell ii. 5, 20 

Wright V. Shawcross 
V. Shiffnev 
v. Simpson 
V. Smith 
V. Smyth 
V. Steele 
V. Wilcox 

;. 282 
ii. 400 
ii. 6 
ii. 694, 699 
i. 740 
i. 324 
i. 102 

V. Wright i. 122,224, 366; ii. 58, 


0. Wheeler iii. 120 

Wrightup V. Chamberlain iii. 214 

Wrigley, m re ii. 580 

V. Smith iii. 293 

Wrotesley v. Adams i. 500 ; ii. 551 

Wroth V. Johnson ii. 757 

Wroughton v. Turtle iii. 287 

Wyat V. Bulmer i. 256 

V. Hodson iii. 80, 82 

Wylmrd v. Stanton i. 100 

Wycoft' V. Longhead iii. 144 

Wydown's Case iii. 504 

Wyke V. Rogers ii. 27 

Wyld V. Pickford ii. 243 

Wylie V. Smitherman iii. 172, 175 

Wylly V. Collins i. 368 

Wyman v. Ballard iii. 223 

V. Gray iii. 16 

c;. Hallowell & Augusta Bank 

i. 43 

V. People's Ins. Co. ii. 433, 462 

V. Smith iii. 26, 27 

V. Winslow ii. 646 

Wyndham, ex parte iii. 460 

V. Way i. 512 

Wynu V. Alden i. 83 

V. Allard ii. 230, 231 

II. Carrell i. 400 

V. Cox ii. 549 

Wynne v. Jackson ii. 570 

V. Price i. 492; iii. 370 

V. Raikes i. 267 


Ximenes v. Jaques 

Yale V. Dederer i. 

Yallop V. Ebers 
Yancey v. Brown 
Yandes v. Lefavour 
Yarborough v. Bank of England 
Yard v. Eland 
Yarnell v. Anderson 
Yate V. Roules 
V. Willan 
Yates V Boen 

V. Bond 

V. Brown i. 105 ; ii. 

V. Carnsew 

u. Duff 

iii. 293 

365, 368 

iii. 506 

ii. 29 

ii. 615 

i. 138 

i. 4.50 

i. 170 

i. 22 

ii. 638 

i. 384 

i. 574 

348, 349 

iii. 469 

ii. 28S 



Yates V. Doniilrl^on 

V. Foot 

!i. Freckleton 

V. Hoppc 

y. Nash 

V. Pym 

V. Sherrington 

V. Van Rensselaer 
Yea V. Fouraker 
Yeatmaii v. Woods 
Yong ?'. Ri'TnoU 
York Buildings r. Mackenzie 
Yi/rk 1'. Giiudstone 
Yorke ';. Grcnaugh ii. InS, 
Yorks i: Peek 
Youde r. Junes 
Young, eT jxirte ii. 266, 270 ; 

in re 

V. Adams i. 

V. Axtcll 

V. Bank of Bengal 

u. Berkley 

V. Black 

V. Bryan 

V. Burton 

V. Co\'ell 

V. Dearborn 

r. Eagle Ins Co. 

V, Frier 

V. Frost 

V. Hall 

o. Harris i. 

V. Hockley 

V. Hunter 

V. Keigldev 

V. Markalf 

V. MeCluer 

V. Miller 

V. I'aul 

V. Keuben 

i. .32 

Y'oung V. Scott 

iii, 12? 

ii. 756 

V. Smith 


184, 206 


614, 61.5 

V. Taylor 

iii. 506 

i. 70 

I . Timmins 

ii. 750 

i. 2.')0 

V. Turner 

in. 165 


; ii. 547 

v. VirL'inia, The 

ii. 271 


483, 515 

V. Ward 

i. 242 

ii. 735 

V. Washington Co. I 

is. Co. ii. 42.S 

iii. 62 

V. Wood 

iii. 278 

i. 150 

V. Wright 

iii. 117 

ii. 5 

Younghlood r. Loury 

i. 518 

i. 87 

Younger v. Givens 


207, 208 

ii. 153 

Young Mcehanic, The 


260, 281 


: iii. 2.')2 

Young Sam, The 

ii. 262 

i. 11, 30 

Youngs V. Lee i. 


259, 283 

ii. 514 

Youc|ua r. Nixon 


461, 534 


493, 507, 

Yoxtheimer v. Keyser 

i. 382 


iii. 459 


264; ii. 622 

i. 168 

Zacharias v. Zacliarias 

iii. 69 


483, 515 

Zacharie i\ Orleans Ins, Co. 

ii. 367 

iii. 118 

Zaehrison v. Aliman 

i. 93 

ii. 730 

Zachrisson r. Poppe 

i. 544 

i. 286 

Zagury v. Furnell 

i. 527 

iii. 374 

Zaue !'. Brig President, The 


260, 263 

ii. 7Tr) 

( . Zane 


438, 442 

iii. 269 

Zarega, in re 

iii. 450 


355, 452 

Zenobia, The 

ii. 334 

i. 213 

Zent V. Heart 

iii. 81 

iii. 415 

Ze]fhyr, The ii. 


283, 321 


773, 774 

Zepliyrus, The 

ii. 320 


; ii. 570 

Zeraga ii. Poppe 

ii. 291 

iii. 507 

Zerbce (1. Miller 

ii. 47 

i. 172 

Zicgenfuss, ex parte 

iii. 446 

i. 207 

Zinck V. Walker 

i. 531 

iii. 94 

Zinn u. Rowley 

ii. 653 

i. 530 

Zipcey v. Thompson 

ii. 570 

iii. 107 

Zodiac, T'hc 

ii. 333 

iii. 414 

Zouch V. Parsons 

i. 294 

ii. 693 

Zwingcr v. Samuda 

i. 291 

PART 1. 






VOL. I. 




The Law of Contracts, in its widest extent, may be regarded 
as including nearly aU the law which regulates the relations of 
human life. Indeed, it may be looked upon as the basis of 
human society. All social life presumes it, and rests upon it ; 
for out of contracts, express or implied, declared or understood, 
grow all rights, all duties, all obligations, and all law. Almost 
the whole procedure of human life implies, or, rather, is, the 
continual fulfilment of contracts. 

Even those duties, or those acts of kindness and affection, 
which may seem most remote from contract or compulsion of 
any kind, are nevertheless within the scope of the obligation of 
contracts. The parental love which provides for the infant 
when, in the beginning of its life, it can do nothing for itself, 
nor care for itself, would seem to be so pure an offering of 
affection, that the idea of a contract could in no way belong to 
it. But even here, although these duties are generally dis- 
charged from a feeling which borrows no strength from a sense 
of obligation, there is still such an obHgation. It is implied by 
the cares of the past, which have perpetuated society from gen- 
eration to generation ; by that absolute necessity which makes 



the performance of these duties the condition of the preserva- 
tion of human life; and by the implied obligation on the part 
of the unconscious objects of this care, that when, by its 
means, they shaU have grown into strength, and age has 
brought weakness upon those to whom they are thus indebted, 
they will acknovv'ledge and repay the debt. Indeed, the law 
recognizes and enforces this obligation, to a certain degree, on 
both sides, as will be shown hereafter. 

It -^^ould be easy to go further, and show that in all the rela- 
tions of social life, its good order and prosperity depend upon 
the due fulfilment of the couti-acts which bind aU to all. Some- 
times these contracts are deliberately expressed with all the 
precision of law, and are armed with all its sanctions. More 
frequently they are, though stiU expressed, simpler in form and 
more general in language, and leave more to the intelligence, 
the jtistice, and honesty of the parties. Far more frequently 
they are not expressed at all; and for their definition and ex- 
tent we must look to the common principles which all are sup- 
posed to understand and acknowledge. In this sense, contract 
is coordinate and commensurate with duty ; and it is a famiUar 
principle of the law, of which we shall have much to say here- 
after, and which has a wide, though far from a universal appli- 
cation, that whatsoever it is certain that a man ought to do, that 
the law supposes him to have promised to do. " Implied con- 
tracts," says Blackstone (vol. ii. p. 443), " are such as reason 
and justice dictate, and which, therefore, the law presumes 
that every man undertakes to perform." These contracts form 
the web and woof of actual life. If they were wholly disre- 
garded, the movement of society would be arrested. And in so 
far as they are disregarded, that movement is impeded or dis- 

If nil contracts, express or implied, were carried into fuU 
effect, the law would have no office but that of instructor or 
adviser. It is because they are not all carried into effect, and 
it is that they may be earned into effect, that the law exercises 
a compulsory power. 

Hence is the necessity of law ; and the well-being of society 
depends upon, and may be measured by, the' degree in which 


the law construes and interprets all contracts wisely ; elimi- 
nates from them whatever is of fraud, or eiTor, or othenvise 
VATongful ; and carries them out into their full and proper 
effect and execution. These, then, are the results which the law 
seeks. And it seeks these results by means of principles ; that 
is, by means of truths, ascertained, defined, and so expressed 
as to be practical and operative. There are many of the rules 
of law which do not come within this definition of principles. 
They are formal or technical ; but they are in force because 
they are believed to be subsidiary to, and needed or useful for 
the comprehension, application, and enforcement of principles ; 
and these formal rules derive their whole power and value from 
the principles which they explain or enforce and perpetuate. 

It is said that the law seeks these results by means of prin- 
ciples ; and these again, in their most general form, may be 
said to be, first, those rules of construction and interpretation 
which have for their object to find in a contract a meaning 
which is honest, sensible, and just, without doing violence to 
the expressions of the parties, or making a new contract for 
them ; and, secondly, those which discharge from a contract 
whatever would bring upon it the fatal taint of fraud, or is 
founded upon error or accident, or would worlv an injury. 
And if these elements of wrong are so far vital to any contract, 
that when they are removed it perishes, then the law annuls or 
refuses to enforce that contract, unless a still greater mischief 
would thereby be done. 

Subsidiary to these are the rules and processes of the law, 
by means whereof a contract, which in itself is good, and has 
been properly construed, and is free from all removable ele- 
ments of wrong, is enforced, or carried into execution. 




A contract, in legal contemplation, is an agreement between 
two or more parties, for the doing or the not doing of some 
particular thing, (a) 

It has been said that the word agreement is derived from the 
phrase " aggregaiio mentiumr (b) This is at least doubtful, and 
was probably suggested by the wish to illustrate that principle 
of the law of contracts which makes an agreement of the minds 
of the parties or the consent and harmony of their intentions, 
essential. We shall presently see that they must propose and 
mean the same thing, and in the same sense. 

The word " contract " is of comparatively recent use, as 
a law term. Formerly, courts and lawyers spoke only of 
" obligations," (c) — meaning thereby " bonds," in which the 
word " oblige " is commonly used as one of the technical and 
formal terms, — "covenants," and "agreements," which last 
word was used as we now use the word " contract." The 
word "promise" is often used in instruments, and sometimes 
in legal proceedings. " Agreement " is seldom applied to 
specialties ; " contract " is generally confined to simple con- 
tracts ; and " promise " refers to the engagement of a party 

(a) "A contract is an agreement in whicli is a drawing together, so as in con- 

wliich a party undertakes to do, or not to tr;icts every tiling which is requisite ought 

do, a particular thing." Marshall, C. J., to concur and meet together; namely, 

Sturges V. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 197. the consideration, of the one side, and 

— "A contract is an agreement, upon the sale or the promise on the other side, 

sufficient consideration, to do or not But to maintain an action upon an as- 

to do a particular thing." 2 Bl. Com. sumpsit, the same is not requisite, for it 

446. — In Sidenham and Worlington's is sufficient if there be a moving cause, or 

case, 2 Leon. 224, 225, which was an as- consideration precedent, for which cause 

sumpsit, founded upon an executed con- or consideration the promise was made." 

Bideration, Periam, J., conceived that the . -^ See also the able article on the dcfini- 

action did well lie, and he said there was tion and division of contracts, 20 Am. 

a great difference between ctm(rac(s and Jur. 1. 

that case: "For in contracts upon sale, [b) Per Pollard, Serjeant, arguendo in 

the consideration and the promise, and Eeniger v. Fogossa, Plowd. 17. 
the sale, ought to meet togotlier, for n (c) See the Abridgments of Brooke, 

contract is derived from con and trahere, RoUe, Bacon, &c. 


without reference to the reasons or considerations for it, or the 
duties of other parties. 

In the above definition of a contract, no mention is made of 
the consideration. The Statute of Frauds requires, in many- 
cases, and for many purposes, that the " agreement " shall be 
in writing, and some note or memorandum thereof be signed by 
the party sought to be charged. Under this provision, it has 
been much controverted whether the word " agreement " so far 
implies a " consideration," that this also must be in writing. 
This question will be considered in a subsequent part of this 
work, {d) We have not included the consideration in the defi- 
nition of the contract, because we do not regard it as, of itself, 
an essential part thereof. But for practical purposes it is made 
so by some important and very influential rules, and we shall 
treat of the consideration as one of the elements of a legal 



The most general division of contracts is into contracts by 
speciality, and simple contracts. 

Contracts by specialty are those which are reduced to writing 
and attested by a seal — or, to use the common phrase, contracts 
under seal ; and contracts of record. These last are judgments, 
recognizances, and statutes staple. But the term " contracts by 
specialty " is sometimes confined to contracts under seal. 

Simple contracts are all those which are not contracts by 
specialty. It is not accurate in point of language to distinguish 
between verbal contracts and written contracts ; for whether the 
words are written or spoken, the contracts are equally verbal, 
or expressed in words. Nor is it accurate in point of law to 

(rf) Vol. II. 295-7. And see Wain v. 5 Cranch, 142; Packard v. Eichardson, 
Warlters, 5 East, 16 ; Saunders v. Wake- 17 Mass. 122 ; Sage v. Wilcox, 6 Conn 
field, 4 B. & Aid. 595 ; Violett v. Patton, 81. 


distinguish between written and parol contracts, (e) For whethei 
they be written or only spoken, they are, in law, if not sealed, 
equally and only parol contracts. For some purposes, and 
esiDecially by the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, the evi- 
dence of the contract must be in writing ; and when it is in 
Avriting, some peculiar rules of law apply to it. (/) But it is a 
mistake to rest upon this a legal distinction between written 
and oral contracts ; and from this mistake some confusion has 
arisen, (g-) 

The essentials of a legal conlTact, of which we shall now pro- 
ceed to treat, are, first, the Parties, for we cannot conceive of a 
contract which has no parties ; secondly, the Consideration, for 
this is, in legal contemplation, the cause of the contract ; thirdly, 
the Assent of the Parties, without which there is in law no con- 
tract ; and, fourthly, the Subject- Matter of the Contract, or what 
the parties to it propose as its effect. 

(e) " The law makes no distinction in by a hifrhcr sort. In this sense it is un- 

contracts, except between contracts which questionably tnie, as Lord Elleiiborough 

arc, and contracts which arc not, under said in Hoare v. Graham, 3 Camp. 57, 

seal. I recollect one of the most learned that to incorporate with a written contract 

judges who ever sat upon this or any other an incongruous parol condition, is contrary 

bench, being very angry when a distinction to first principles. 

was attempted to be taken between parol (9) Wilmoi, J., Pillans 0. Van Mierop, 

and written contracts, and saying, ' They 3 BuiT. 1670-1, and Parker, J,, Staclt- 

are all parol, unless under seal.' " Lord pole v. Arnold, il Mass. 27, 30, recognize 

Abinger, C. B., in Beckham v. Drake, 9 three classes of contracts, but are not sus- 

M. & W. 92. tained by the authorities. See Eann v. 

(/) And independently of the statute, Hughes, 7 T. E. 350, n. ; Thacher v. 

a familiar rale of judicial procedure for- Dinsniorc, 5 Mass. 299, 301 ; Cook v. 

bids the contradiction, by one sort of cvi- Bradley, 7 Conn. 57 ; IJnion Turnpike 

dence, of a state of things declared to exist Co. v. Jenkins, 1 Gaines, 386. 





Parties may act independently and severally, or jointly, or 
jointly and severally. 

They may act as representative of others, as 


Factors or Brokers, 




Executors or Administrators, 

They may act in a collective capacity, as 


Joint-Stock Companies, 

They may be New Parties, 

Ey Novation, 

"By Assignment, 

By Indorsement. 
They may be Parties disabled in whole or in part, as 


Married Women, 

Bankrupts or Insolvents, 


Non Compotes Mentis, 
These subjects we will proceed to consider separately. 

CH. II.] 





Sec. I. — Whether Parties are Joint or Several. 

Wheeeveb an obligation is undertaken by two or more, oi 
a right given to two or more, it is the general presumption 
of law that it is a joint obligation or right. Words of express 
joinder are not necessary for this purpose; but, on the other 
hand, there should be words of severance, in order to produce 
a several responsibility or a several right, (a) 

Whether the liability incurred is joint, or several, or such 
that it is either joint or several at the election of the other 
contracting party, depends (the rule above stated being kept in 
view) upon the terms of the contract, if they are express ; and 
where they are not express, upon the intention of the parties as 
gathered from all the circumstances of the case, {b) It may 

(a) Hill V. Tucker, 1 Taunt. 7 ; Hat- 
sail V. Griffith, 4 Tyr. 487 ; King y. 
Hoare, 13 M. & W. 499, per Parke, B. ; 
English V. Blundell, 8 C. & P. 332; 
Yorks V. Peck, 14 Barb. 644. — With re- 
spect to instruments under seal, it is said 
in Shep. Touch. 375 : " If two, throe, 
or more bind themselves in an obligation, 
thus, Migamus nos, and say no more, the 
obligation is, and shall be taken to be, 
joint only, and not several." And see 
Ehle V. Purdy, 6 Wend. 629. — If an 
instrument, worded in the singular, is ex- 
ecuted by several, the obligation is a joint 
and several one ; and those who thus exe- 
cute it may be sued either separately or 
together. Hemmenway v. Stone, 7 Mass. 
58 ; Van Alstyne v. Van Slyck, 10 Barb. 
383 ; Powell, J., Sayer v. Chaytor, 1 
Lutw. 695, 697 ; Marsh v. Ward, Peake, 
Cas. 130; Clerk v. Blackstock, Holt, 
474 ; and see Hall v. Smith, 1 B. & C. 
407. Bat in Slater v. Magraw, 12 G. & 
J. 265, where (on the sale of a negro) 
the form of the covenant was, " I do here- 
by obligate to give the said William Slater 
a good title for said boy when called on. 

W. M. F. Magraw (seal). Security : 
George H. Dutton (seal)," — a demuncr 
to a count declaring on this as a joint and 
several covenant, was sustained, and tliu 
court held, that the covenant to convey tlio 
title was the covenant of Magraw alone , 
that the covenant of Dutton was a sever li 
covenant as surety that Magraw AvoukI 
make the title when called on for that pur- 
pose ; and that therefore an action on the 
covenant to convey could not be main- 
tained against them jointly. See also, De 
Eidder v. Schermerhorn, 10 Barb. 638 ; 
Allen V. Fosgate, 11 How. Pr. 218. 

(6) Wilde, J., in Peckham ;;. North 
Parish in Haverhill, 16 Pick. 274, 283. 
In the following cases the liability was 
held to h& joint: — Wigmore and Weils' 
case, 3 Leon. 206 ; Wightman v. Oliait- 
man, Gould. 83; Anonymous, Moore, 
260; Coleman?;. Sherwin, 1 Salk. 137, 1 
Show. 79; Byers v. Dobey, 1 H. Bl. 
236 ; Exall v. Partridge, 8 T. R. 308 ; 
Wathen v. Sandys, 2 Camp. 640 ; Forster 
V. Taylor, 3 id. 49 ; Eaden v. Titchmarsh, 
1 A. & E. 691 ; London Gas Light Co 
V. Nicholls, 2 C. & P. 365; Phillips o 



[book I. 

be doubted, however, whether any thing less than express words 
can raise a liability which shall be at once a joint and a several 

Where the obligation is joint and several, an ancient and 
familiar rule of law forbids it to be treated as several as to 
some of the obligors, and joint as to the rest. The obligee 
has the right of choice between the two methods of proceeding ; 
but he must resort to one or the other exclusively, and cannot 
combine both ; that is, he must proceed either severally against 
each, or jointly against all. (c) 

Bonsiill, 2 Biiin. 138, In the following 
ca^cs the liability was held to be sev- 
eral: — .■i9 H. 6, 9, pi. 1 5 ; Bio, Abr, Cuve- 
nant, pi. 27 ; 9. 0. Vincr Abr. Covenant 
(M.a,), pi. 1,2; s. u. Mathewson's ease, 
5 Rep. 22 ; Brown n. Doyle, 3 Camp. 
51, n. ; Gibson v. Lupton, 9 Bing. 
303 ; Collins v. Prosser, 1 B. & C. 082 ; 
Hudsiin V Kohinson, i ^il. & Sri. 475; 
Smith V. Pocklington, 1 Cr. & J. 44.i ; 
Fell V. Goslin, 11 E. L. & E. .5,5+ ; Harris 
V. Campbell, 4 Dana, 586 ; M'Crcady v. 
Ereeillv, 3 Rawle, 251 ; Ernst v. Bartle, 
1 Jolm"s. Ca~, 319; Lud'ow v. MrCrea, 1 
Wend. 228; Howe y. Handley, 25 Me. 
110. In the following cases the liability 
wa.'^ held to be joint and sn-cral : — Con- 
stable V. Clobery, Pop. 161 ; Burden v. 
FriTi'irt, i Sid. 189 ; Hankinson v. San- 
dilaus, Cro. J. 322; Linn v. Crossing, 
•> Kol. Abr. 148, Obligation (G) ; Lilly v. 
Hoducs, 1 Stra. 553, 8 Mod. 166; Rob- 
inson V. Walker, 1 Salk. 393, 7 Mud. 153. 
The words there were, cunvcniunf pro .s-e et 
qnoiihiit eorinii. But HoU, C. J., di^.-eIltiMg 
from the majority, thought tins niii;ht be 
considered johit by reason of the word 
of agreement (conveniunt), being in the 
plural, and not being re[ie:ited in the sin- 
gular, so as to express a distinct several 
promise. Bolton v. Lee, 2 Lrv. 56 ; 
Sower V. Bradlickl, Cro. E. 42:^^; May v. 
Woodw.ard, Freem. 248; Enys v. lion- 
nilhorne, 2 Burr. 1190; ilansell ;,■. Bur. 
ri'dge, 7 T. K. 352; Bangor Bank u. 
Treat, 6 Grcenl. 207. 

(c) -Streatfield v. Halliday, 3 T. R. 
lAi ; Cabell ii. V.aughan, 1 Wms. Saund. 
291, f, n. 4; Bangor Bank v. Treat, 6 
Greenl. 207. In the case of 3. joint and 
sercial debt, judgment (without satisfac- 
tion) recovered against one of the debtors, 
is no bar to an action against another. 
Per Pojj/iam, C. J., Brown u. Wootton, 

Cro. .1. 74, cited by Parke, B,, in King v. 
Hoare, 13 M, & W. 504. — But a judg- 
ment, tlioiigh unsatisfied, recovered against 
one of two joint debtors, is a bar to an 
action against the other, or to an action 
against both. 3 Kent's Com. 30 ; Ward 
V. Johnson, 13 Mass. 148 ; King v. Hoare, 
13 M. & W. 494. — In Robertson v. Smith, 
18 Johns. 4S4, which was the case of a 
solvent dormant partner, discovered after 
judgment obtained a'^ainst the insolvent 
ostensible partner, Sprnrer, J., while hold- 
ing the plaiuiitf's action to be barred, 
siii;uc<tc.i that the court, on application, 
mi^lit be induced to vacate the former 
jud-ment. — But Collins v. Lemasters, 1 
Bail. 345 ; Treasm-ers !•. Bates, 2 Bail. 
362, and Shcehy i\ Mandeville, 6 Cranch, 
253, are contra. In King v. Ho.ire, 13 
M. & W. 494, Sbrehy v. Mandeville was 
cited, but Parke, B., giving the judgment 
of the court, oliserved : "During the ar- 
gument, a decision of the Chief Ju.--tii-e 
iliirsliiili, in the Supreme Court of the 
United States, was cited as being contrary 
to the conclusion this court has come to; 
the case is that of Shcehy v. Mandeville, 
\^'c need not say we have the greatest 
re.^pect for every decision of that eminent 
judge ; but the reasoning attributed to 
him by that report is not satisfactory to 
us ; and we have since been furnished 
with a report of a subsequent ease, in 
which that authority was cited and con- 
sidered, and in which tile Supreme Judi- 
cial Court of Massachusetts decided that, 
in an action against two on a joint 
note, a judgment against one was a bar. 
Ward V. Johnson, 13 Tyng, 148." — 
Where one contracts in writing with three 
persons to give a bill of sale of two thirds 
of a vessel to two of them, and of one 
third to the other, and, in pursuance o< 
the contract, does convey two thirds ; this 



The question whether the eight under a contract is joint 
or otherwise, enters more intimately into the nature of the con- 
tract, and therefore is of more importance ; and it is at the 
same time of greater difficulty. 

As a contract with several persons, for the payment to them 
of a sum of money, is a joint contract with all, and all the 
payees have therein a joint interest, so that no one can sue 
alone for his proportion; so, the designating of the share of 
each will not create such a severance of interest as to sustain a 
several action ; but all must join in an action for the whole, {d) 
But if the contract contains distinct grants, or promises of dis- 
tinct sums to distinct payees, they would then have several 
interests, and certainly may, perhaps must, bring separate 
actions, (e) 

"Where there are three or more obligees or promisees, the con- 
tract, if treated as joint by any, must be treated as joint by all. 
In no case can two sue together, leaving the other to seek his 
remedy upon the same contract, by himself. (/) 

If a contract which is expressly, and in its very terms, joint 
and several, be made with divers persons, but for the payment 

is not a severance of the cause of action, 10 B. & C. 410. See also, Ford v. 

and a suit may be maintained for the Bronaugli, 11 B. Mon. 14. 
price against the wliole. Marshall u. (/) Contra, Bro. Abr. Covenant, 49. 

Smith, 15 Me. 17. A man covenanted with twenty, and with 

[d) Lane v. Drinkwater, 5 Tyr. 40, 1 C. each of them, to make certain sea-banks ; 
M. & R. 599 ; Byrne v. Fitzhugh, 5 Tyr. and by hi.s not doing it the land of two 
54, 1 C. M. & R. 613. was overflowed to their injury. Held by 

(e) The master of a vessel covenanted the court, that these two could have their 
with the several part-owners and their action of covenant without the others. 
several and respective executors, adminis- " Quare," aAAs Brooke, "for it seems that 
trators, and assigns, to pay certain moneys each should bring an action Lit himself" 
to them and to their several and respective The criticism of Brooke is undoubtedly 
executors, &c., at a certain banker's, and well founded. It may be questioned, 
in mch parts and proportions as were set moreover, whether this case is authority 
against their respective names. Upon even to give such a covenant the legitimate 
this covenant an action was brought by attributes of a S(=i,-«'o/ covenant. The case 
the covenantees jointly. Held, on de- was cited in Slingsby's case (according 
murrer to the declaration, that the cove- to the report of the latter in 2 Leon. 47). 
nant was several, because otherwise no There, A, B, and C, being parties rcspec- 
etfcct would be given to the words " sev- tively to an indenture tripartite, whei-ein 
eral and respective executors," &c., and A covenanted with B and C, tt quolibet 
because the money was to be paid to the eormn, that the land which he had con- 
banker, not as an entire sum for him to veyed to B was discharged of all incum- 
make distributions, but in several propor- brances, B brouglit a several action of 
tions to the separate account of each part- covenant ; and the conrt held, notwith- 
owner, thus making the interest of the standing the case from Brooke, that C 
covenantees several. Servante v. James, ought to have been joined. 


of a sum or the accruing of some other benefit to one of them 
only, all must join in a suit upon that contract ; (g) because but 
one thing is to be done, and all have a legal interest in the per- 
formance of that thing, although but one party has a beneficial 
interest. So if there be in one instrument a covenant with A, 
and another separate and distinct covenant with B, and both 
are for the payment of a sum of money to A, A cannot sue 
alone for this sum, but B must join, because otherwise the payer 
might be subjected to suits by both parties. (A) In general, all 
contracts, whether express, or implied and resulting from the 
operation or construction of law, are joint, where the interest 
in them of the parties for whose benefit they are created, is 
joint, and separate where that interest is separate. But the in- 
terest which is thus important as a criterion, is an interest in 
■ the contract, and not in any sum of money, or other benefit, to 
be received from it. It is a strictly legal and technical interest 
created by the contract, and does not depend upon the con- 
dition or state of the parties aside from the contract, (i) 

A covenant which is single in its nature, or, which is for one 
and the same cause, and so, in strict propriety, may be called 
one covenant and not a cluster of covenants, can never be joint 
and several in respect to the covenantees. In other words, this 
class of covenants does not exist wi1h respect to the parties 
plaintiff in an action for covenant broken ; it never lies in the 
option of the covenantees to say whether they shall sue for 
the breach, jointly or severally. They must sue jointly if they 
can. (j ) The circumstances of each case, and the situation 

iff) Andersons. Martindale.lEast, 497. found in the cii^e where the tuords of ths 

Uf) Id. covenant are joint and several as to the 

(i) Anderson v. Martindale, 1 East, covenantees, while is several. 

497 ; English i.. Blundoll, 8 C. & P. 3.32; In such a case the law, perhaps, allows 

Lord Denmaii, Hopkinsou v. Lee, 6 Q. B. the covenantees, who, upon any principle 

9^1. 9"-- of construction, clearly may "sue sepa- 

ij) Slingsby'scase, 5Rcp. 19 a; Spen- ratclv, the libertv to .sue jointly. Sec Ec- 

cer V. Durant, Comb. 11.^5 ; Eccleston v. clestbn v. Clipsham, 1 Wms. Saund. 153; 

Clipsham, 1 Wms. Saund. 153; Petrio Withers «. Bircham, 3 B. & C. 256; 



Bury, 3 B. & C. 353; Scott v. God- Slingsby's case, 5 Rep 19 a- Rolls 

n, 1 B. & P. 67, 71; Gibbs, C. J., Yate, Yelv. (Mctcalf's ed.), 177, n.— 

James v. Emery, 5 Price, 533; Eolcy On the supposition that this exception 

V. Addenbrooko, 4 Q. B. 197 ; Pollock, exists, both rule and exception might he 

C. B., Parke, B,, and Ro/fe, B., Kci;;htley expressed by stating- the proposition thus: 

V. Watson, 3 Exch. 721, 723, 726.— Pos- —It is not possilile, bi/ any mere words of 

Eibly, an exception to this rule is to be joinda- and severance, to give the cove- 


and relation of the parties, and the nature of the consideration, 

nantees the election to sue sepai'ately or 

By what principles it is to be determined 
whether a given contract is joint, or joint 
and several, or several, is a matter in re- 
gm-d to which the autltorities ai-e in a state 
of some confusion. A doubt, suggested 
by Mr. Preston in his edition of the Touch- 
stone, and taken up by the Court of Ex- 
chequer, has at once shaken the received 
opinion, and occasioned at least apparent 
conflict between that court and the Queen's 
Bench. It is evident that a covenant may 
be considered with reference either to the 
covenantors or covenantees. If A, B, and 
C covenant with X, Y, and Z, two distinct 
questions arise. Shall X, Y, and Z join, 
or not, as plaintiffs 1 Shall A, B, and C 
be joined, or not, as defendants ? There 
appears no reason for doubting tliat the 
words of joinder or severalty determine the 
answer of the second of these questions. 
The covenant, witli respect to the cove- 
nantors, may belong to either one of the 
three classes of joint, several, and joint 
and several, just as the parties have chosen 
to say in the covenant that it shall. The 
language of severalty or joinder, and not 
the interest, is then the test of the quality 
of the covenant quoad the covenantors. 
Enys V. Donnithorne, 2 Burr. II 90. As 
regards the joinder of the covenantees there 
is notliing a priori to prevent the existence 
of the same three classes to choose amongst ; 
namely, the class where they must sue 
jointly, that where they must sue separate- 
ly, and that where it is at their option to 
sue either jointly or severally. But the 
proposition stated above, if true, obviously 
removes the thu-d alternative. The cove- 
nantees either must join or must sever. 
Thus the inquiry is narrowed to this. By 
what means is it to be determined in a 
given case whether they must or must not 
sue jointly t And this is the point, and, 
&s it would seem, the only point upon 
which there is a real conflict of authorities. 
A series of cases, received without question 
by the text-writers, went upon the princi- 
ple that the interest which the covenantees 
take by the covenant, quite irrespective of 
words of severalty or joinder ^ is in all cases 
the decisive test. James v. Emery, 5 
Price, 529, 8 Taunt. 245 ; "Withers v. 
Bircham, 3 B. & C. 254; Servante v. 
James, 10 E. & C. 410 ; Lane v. Drink- 
water, 5 Tyr. 40, 1 C. M. & R. 599. But 
Mr. Preston denies the correctness of the 

rule as stated. " On the subject of joint 
and several covenants, that eminent law- 
yer. Sir Vicary Gibbs, assumed that cove- 
nants must necessarily be joint or several 
according to the interest. The language 
was, ' Wherever the mterest of parties is 
separate, the action may be several, not- 
withstanding the terms of the covenant on 
which it is founded may be joint; and 
whore the interest is joint, the action must 
be joint, although the covenant in lan- 
guage purport to be joint and several.' 
James v. Emery et al. 5 Price, 533. With 
great deference, however, the correct rule 
is, that, by express words clearly indica- 
tive of the intention, a covenant may be 
joint, or joint and several, to or with the 
covenantors or covenantees, notwithstand- 
ing the interests are several. Salk. 393; 
2 Roll. Abr. 419 [possibly should be 149 ; 
See 6 Q. B. 971, n.]. So they may be 
several, although the interests are joint. 
But the implication or construction of 
law, when the words are ambiguous, or 
are left to the interpretation of law, will 
be, that the words have an import corre- 
sponding to the interest, so as to be joint 
when the interest is joint, and several 
when the interest is several ; notwith 
standing language which, under different 
circumstances, would give to the covenant 
a different effect. Slingsby's case, 5 Rep. 
19; 3 Chanc. 126; 5 T. E. 522; South- 
cote V. Hoai-e, 3 Taunt. 89 ; 1 Wood, 537 ; 
2 Bun-. 1190." Shep. Touch, by Pres- 
ton, 166. In Sorsbie v. Park, 12 M. & 
W. 146, Lord Abinger said: "I think 
the rule is plain and certain, and requires 
no authority ; it is correctly stated by Mr. 
Preston in the passage in Shep. Touch. 
166, which Mr. Temple cited. Where the 
words of a covenant are in their nature 
ambiguous, so that they may be construed 
either way, then the deed in which they 
are inserted supplies the mode of their 
construction. K it exhibit a several in- 
terest in the parties, you may construe 
it as a several covenant, and vice versa. 
But there is no rule to say that words, 
which are expressly a joint covenant by 
[to] several persons, shall be construed 
as a several covenant, unless there is 
something to lead to that construction." 
In this view Parke, B., concurred (p. 
158). "The rule is, that a covenant 
will be construed to be joint or several 
according to the interest of the parties 
appearing upon the face of the deed, if 
the words are capable of that construe- 


are all to be looked into, to ascertain who is really interested, 

tion; not that it will be constraed to 
be several by reason of sereral interests, 
if it be expressly joint." — In Foley v. 
Addenbrooke, 4 Q. B. 197 (which was 
decided a little before Sorsbie v. Park, 
but was not referred to in tliat case), the 
doubt suggested by Preston was not agi- 
tated. — Mills V. Ladbroke, 7 Man. & G. 
218 [1844], was an action brought by a 
single plaintiff. It was contended that 
the covenant on which the action was 
founded, although several in terms, ought 
to be treated as joint by reason of the 
interest of the covenantees, who were en- 
gaged in a partnership transaction. Tin- 
ddl, C. J., in overruling the objection, 
thus adverted to the docti'ine of the Court 
of Exchequer: "The covenant, therefore, 
entered into by the defendant, as repre- 
senting Kingscote, with the shareholders, 
is, in point of fonn, not a covenant with 
all the covenantees jointly, Init a several 
covenant with eai'h. And we think this 
is so clearly the case, tliat if the general 
rule as laid down by Sir Vkary Gibbs, in 
James v. Emery, is qualified according to 
the suggestion of Mr. Preston, in a note to 
Sheppard's Touchstone, p. 166, whicliAvas 
adopted by the Court of Exchequer in tlie 
case of Sorsbie v. Park, all reference to 
the nature of the plaintiff's interest would 
be unnecessary. But, assuming on the 
authority of the several cases referred to 
in the argument, that the unqualified rule 
of law is, that the action shall follow the 
nature of the interest of the covenantees, 
without regard to the precise form of the 
covenant, so that the action must bo joint 
where the interest in the subject-matter of 
the covenant is joint, and several where 
the interest of each covenantee is a several 
interest, we think, upon reference to the 
deed itself, the plaintiff has such several 
interest in the subject-matter as will enable 
him to sue alone on this several covenant." 
[His Lordship then proceeds to examine 
the language of the deed.] It was not 
long before Hopkinson u. Lee, 6 Q. B. 
964 [184.)], afforded an opportunity for 
the expression of the 0|)lniun of the Court 
of Queen's Bench. This was an action 
by a trustee upon articles of agreement 
under seal, to which the defendant and T. 
were parties, of the one part, aud the 
plaintiff and his cestui que trust, parties of 
the other part. The agi-cemont recited a 
loan by the plaintiff to E. of money in the 
hands of the plaintiff, belonging to the 
cestui que trust ; in consideration of which 

defendant and T. covenanted severally 
and respectively " with and to [the plain- 
tiff] his executors, administrators, and as- 
signs, and also as a distinct covenant with 
and to [the cestui que ti'ust] her executors, 
administrators, and assigns," that they, 
the covenantors, would pay, or cause to 
be paid, interest at five per cent, per an- 
num on the money lent to B. It was held 
that the cestui que trust ought to have 
been joined as a plaintiff. Lord Denman 
in the opinion, refen'ed with approbation 
to tlie rule that words of severalty do not 
prevent a covenant from being joint where 
the interest is joint, and said that Mr. 
Preston's exception was not gi-ounded on 
any judicial authority. His lordship 
added (p. 971), "We think there is no 
ground for Mr. Preston's apprehension 
that words perfectly plain and unambigu- 
ous, confining the contract expressly to 
one person, and excluding all others from 
its operation, will be strained by the law 
so as to comprehend those whom it took 
pains to exclude. The true explanation 
of the rule is rather this : that the whole 
covenant, taken together, binds to both 
covenantees, and not to either of them 
alone, though separately named in some 
of its words, by reason of the joint interest 
in the subject-matter, of the action ap- 
pearing on the face of the deed itself 
Such being the state of the authorities, a 
special case was reserved from the assizes * 
for the Court of Exchequer, where certain 
persons, with whom a covenant had been 
made, sued the covenantors upon it. The 
deed, being fully set out, was found to 
make a covenant with the plaintiffs, for 
themselves and others ; and in Michaelmas 
Term, 184.3, the court held, in strict con 
formity with all the cases, that a nonsuif 
oui;lit to be entered, because those others 
hail not been joined as plaintiffs in bring- 
ing the action, though the covenant de 
clared on was, in its terms, made with 
them alone. But the plaintiff here places 
his whole reliance on some dicta which 
fell from the late Chief Baron and from 
Ptirlce, B., applicable, not to that case, 
but only to the converse of it, which were 
represented as at variance with the old 
law. Unluckily, no reference was made 
to Anderson v. Martindale, as the court, 
justly thinking the general rale too clear 
for argument, stopped the leai-ned counsel 
who supported it. Lord Abinger thought 
the rule plain and certain, and that it re- 
quired no authority : ' it is correctly stated 


and who has sustained the damage arising from a breach of 

by Mr. Pi-eston : ' he then cites the rule 
with the exception. Parke, B., also 
thinlis the correct rule is laid down by 
Gibbs,-C. J., in James v. Emery (5 Pi-ice, 
533), with the qualification stated by Mr. 
Pieston. These learned judges could not 
intend to overrule Anderson v. Martindale, 
(1 East, 497), which was not brought 
before them ; nor, if they did, could we 
agree to be bound by their extraiudicially 
declaring such an intention where their 
decision itself pursued the doctrine of that 
case." — In Bradburne v. Botfleld, 14 M. 
& W. 559, 572 [1845], the matter was thus 
left by Baron Parke : — " There is no oc- 
casion to refer to the cases relating to the 
rule of construction, as to covenants being 
joint or several, according to the interest 
of the parties, which is perfectly well 
established. In the case of Sorsbie v. 
Park (12 M. & W. 146), Lord Abinger 
and myself, on referring to the established 
rule, as laid down by Lord Chief Justice 
GMs, in the case of James v. Emery (2 
Moore, 195), approved of Mr. Preston's 
qualification and explanation of it in his 
edition of the Touchstone, 166, namely, 
that, if the language of the covenant was 
capable of being so construed, it was to be 
taken to be jomt or several, according to 
the interest of the parties to it. Mr. 
Preston adds, that the general rule pro- 
posed by Sir Vicary Gibbs, and to be found 
m several books, would establish that there 
was a rule of law too powerful to be con- 
trolled by any intention, however express, 
and I consider such qualification to be 
perfectly coiTCct, and at variance with no 
decided case, as it is surely as competent 
for a person, by express joint words, 
strong enough to make a joint covenant, 
to do one thing for the benefit of one of 
the covenantees, and another for the benefit 
of another, as it is to make a joint demise 
where it is for the benefit of one. I men- 
tion tjiis, because the Court of Queen's 
Bench, in the case of Hopkinson v. Lee 
(14 Law J. (n. s.) Q. B. 104), have sup- 
posed that Lord Abinger and myself had 
sanctioned some doctrine at variance with 
the case of Anderson v. Martindale, and 
Slingsby's case, which it was far from my 
intention, and I liave no doubt from Lord 
Abinger's, to do ; it being fully estab- 
lished, I conceive, by those cases, that one 
and the same covenant cannot be made 
both joint and several with the oovenantees. 
It may be fit to observe, that a part of 
Mr. Preston's explanation, that by express 

VOL. I. 2 

words a covenant may be joint and several 
with the covenantors or covenantees, not- 
withstanding the interests are several, is 
inaccm-ately expressed ; it is true only of 
covenantors, and the case cited from Sal- 
keld, p. 393, relates to them; probably 
Mr. Preston intended no more, and I never 
meant to assent to the doctrine that the 
same covenant might be made, by any 
words, however strong, joint and several, 
where the interest was joint ; and it is this 
part, I apprehend, of Mr. Preston's doc- 
trine, to which the Court of Queen's 
Bench objects. I think it right. to give 
this explanation, that it may not be sup- 
posed that there is any difference on this 
point with the Court of Queen's Bench." 
— Afterwards [1849] came the case of 
Keightley v. Watson, 3 Exch. 716. That 
was an action of covenant by one plain- 
tiff on a deed executed by one Dobbs 
of the first part, the plaintifi' of the 
second part, and the defendants of the 
third part. The deed, after reciting that 
Dobbs had agreed to purchase certain 
. land of the plaintiff, which same land 
Dobbs had agreed to sell to the defend- 
ants, stated that it was thereby covenanted 
by each party thereto, that Dobbs should 
sell, and the defendants should purchase, 
the said land, at £7,335, £900 to be paid 
upon the execution of the deed, and 
£6,435 on the 27th November, 1851. 
The deed then contained the following 
covenant : " And the defendants for them- 
selves, their heirs, &c., hereby covenant, 
with the said plaintiff, his executors, &c., 
and, as a separate covenant with the said 
Dobbs, his executors, &c., that they the 
said defendants, and their heirs, &c., shall, 
on performance of the covenant and agree- 
ment, hereinbefore contained, on the pairt 
of the said Dobbs, pay to the said plain- 
tiflr, his executors, &c., or to the said 
Dobbs, his executors, &c., in case the 
said plaintiffs, his executors, &c., shall 
then have been paid his or their purchase- 
money, payable, &c., the sum of £6,435, 
being the remainder of the said purchase- 
money, on or before the 27th November, 
1851. And further, that the said defend- 
ants, their heirs, &c., shall in the mean- 
time, and until the whole of the said sum 
of £6,435 shall be paid off, pay to the 
said plaintiff, his executors, &c., interest 
on so much of the purchase-money as 
shall from time to time remain unpaid, at 
the rate of £5 per cent, per annum, froni 
the date of these presents," &c. Bsia, 



[book I. 

the contract, and whether such damage was joint or sev- 
eral. (A;) 

that plaintiff might probably sue alone for 
interest on the unpaid portion of the pur- 
chase-money, the coYeuant being several. 
Pollock, C. 13., said: "I am of opinion 
that in tliis case the plaintifif is entitled to 
the judgment of the Coui-t. I consider 
that the inquiry really is as to tlie true 
meaning of tlie covenant, at the same 
time bearing in mind the mle — a rule 
which I am by no means willing to break 
in upon — that the same covenant cannot 
be treated as joint or several at tlie option 
of the covenantee. If a covenant be so 
constructed as to be ambiguous, that is, 
so as to serve either the one view or the 
other, then it will be joint, if the interest 
be joint, and it will be several, if the in- 
terest be several. On the other hand, if 
it be in its tei-ms unmiitakablij joint, then, 
although the interest be several, all the 
parties must be joined in the action. So, 
if the covenant be made clearly several, 
the action must be several, although the 
interest be joint. It is a question of con- 
struction. What then, in this case, did 
the parties mean ■? The words of the 
covenant are, ' And the said R. Watson, 
H. Watson, and J. Smith, for themselves, 
their heirs, executors, and administrators, 
hereby covenant with the said W. T. 
Keightley, his executors, administrators, 
and assigns, and as a separate covenant 
with the said A. A. Dobbs, liis executors, 
administrators, and assigns, that they' 
will do so and so. If I am to put a con- 
struction upon that, I should say that it is 
intended to be a several or separate cove- 
nant. In the case of Hopkinson v. Lee, 
it seems to liave been understood at one 
time by this Court, that there were joint 
words. There are certainly none. But 
the natui'c of the interest, upon looking 

into that particular case, may possibly 
justify that decision. The words of this 
instrument are several, and its ternis dis- 
close a several interest ; the covenant, 
therefore, must be construed according to 
the words as a several covenant ; and it 
appears to me that the words used by the 
parties were intended to create such a 
covenant. I think, therefore, that the 
plaintiff is entitled to sue alone." Parke, 
B., in the course of an opinion of consid- 
erable length, said : " The rale that cove- 
nants are to be construed according to 
the interests of the parties, is a rule of 
construction merely, and it cannot be 
supposed that such a rale was ever laid 
down as could prevent parties, whatever 
words they miglit use, from covenanting 
in a different manner. It is impossible 
to say that parries may not, if they please, 
use joint words, so as to express a joint 
covenant, and thereby to exclude a sev- 
eral covenant, and that, because a cove- 
nant may relate to several interests, it is 
therefore necessarily not to be construed 
as a joint covenant. If there be words 
capable of two constructions, we must look 
to the interest of the parties which they 
intended to protect, and construe the 
words according to that interest. I ap- 
prehend that no case can be found at va- 
riance with that rule, unless Hopkinson 
V. Lee may be tliought to Iiave a contrary 
aspect. During the course of the argu- 
ment in Bradinirne v. Botfield, I cer- 
tainly was under the im])ression, from 
reading the case of Hopldnson v. Lee, 
that there were in tliat case words capa- 
ble of such a construction as to make the 
covenant a joint covenant. If that had 
bern so, then the words subsequently 
introduced would not have made it several. 

(k) In Windham's case, 5 RQp, 7, it 
is stated that joint words in a grant are 
sometimes taken severally. 1. In respect 
of the several interests of the grantors ; 
as if two tenants in common, or several 
tenants, join in a grant of a rent-charge, 
yet in law this grant shall be several, al- 
though the words are joint. 2. In respect 
of the several interests of the gi-antees, 
&c. 19 H. 6, 63, 64. A warranty made 
to two of certain lands shall enure as 
several wan-anties, in respect that they 
are severally seized, the one of part of the 
lands, and the other of the residue in sev- 

eralty. 6 E. 2 ; Covenant, Br. 49. [But 
this case docs not seem to bo law. See 
note (m) siqva.] A joint covenant taken 
severally in respect of the several interests 
of the covenantees. Vide 16 Ehz. Dyer, 
337, 338 [infra note (c)] between Sir 
Anthony Cook and Watton, a good case. 
3. In respect that the grant cannot take 
effect but at several times. 4. In respect 
of the incapacity and impossibility of the 
grantees to take jointly. 5. In respect of 
the cause of the grant, or raiione suhjectcs 
matericE. 6. Ne res destruatur et ut evitetur 




The nature, and especially the entireness, (l) of the consider- 
ation, is of great importance in determining whether the promise 
be joint or several; for if it moves from many persons jointly, 
the promise of repayment is joint ; (m) but if from many per- 
sons, but li-om each severally, there it is several, (n) Where the 
payment is in the first place of one sum in solido, and this is 
afterwards to be divided among the payees, there, generally, the. 

unless there had also been an interest 
in respect of which it could be several, 
according to the rule referred to by the 
Lord Chief Baron, as laid down in Slings- 
by's case, that it is not competent to the 
court to hold the same covenant joint or 
several at the option of the covenantee." 
Rolfe, B., gave the following opinion, 
which is cited at length as containing 
within a small compass a clear and ^ble 
review of the whole subject : " I am of 
the same opinion. It seems to me that 
the question turns entirely upon the rule, 
as stated by my Brother Parke, wliich 
was distinctly laid down by this court in 
the cases cited, and in which I fully con- 
cur. It appears to me that Mr. Preston's 
suggestion wa.^ perfectly well founded, 
that the rule in Slingsby's case was not 
a rule of law, but a mere rule of con- 
struction. Prom that case it appears, 
that, if a covenant be cum quolibet et quali- 
bet eonim, that may be eitlier a joint or 
several covenant, and it will depend upon 
the context whether it is to be taken as 
a joint or several ; but it cannot be both. 
The rule given in Slingsby's case is not 
very satisfactory to my mind; namely, 
with regard to the difficulty which arises 
as to the proper person to recover dam- 
ages. If a party choose to enter into a 
covenant which creates such a difficulty, I 
do not see what the court has to do with 
it. It is clear that parties can so contract 
by separate deeds ; why, then, should they 
not be able equally to do so by separate 
covenants in the same deed ? If they so 
word one covenant as to make it a joint 
and separate covenant, had it not been 
otherwise decided, I confess I should have 
seen nothing extraordinary in holding that 
if they chdose so to contract as to impose 
upon themselves that burden, and state 
it to be both joint and several, the court 
ought so to construe it. But Slingsby's 
case has laid down the opposite rule. I 
take it, that from that time, the rule has 
always been — whether distinctly ex- 
pressed or not, it is not necessary to con- 

sider — but the rule has been that you are 
to look and see from the context what the 
parties meant. Applying that rule here, 
I see no doubt about the question. They 
have said, in terms, that it is to be a 
separate covenant. According to the 
other construction, if Dobbs had satisfied 
Keightley, and Dobbs had died, Keightley 
might have to sue for the money coming 
to Dobbs, and vice versa ; or, suppose 
Dobbs had not satisfied Keightley, and 
Keightley had died, Dobbs would have 
had to sue for the money coming to 
Keightley's representatives. The parties 
have expressed themselves in words show- 
ing it was to be a separate covenant 
with each, and I think we should so hold 
it ; consequently the plaintiff is entitled 
to our judgment." Piatt, B., concurred 
in the judgment. — Prom the whole we 
may gather that the Court of Exchequer 
maintain the general principle that it is 
competent for the parties to make the con- 
tract, by express words, what they please, 
as well with respect to the joinder of 
parties as with respect to any other legal 
quality of the contract. The rule, carried 
to its extent, would permit the making of 
a covenant joint, or several, or joint and 
several, as to the covenantors ; and jcnnt, 
or several, or joint and several, as to the 
covenantees. But the Court of Exchequer 
add that the rule is to be taken with this 
qualification, namely, that one of the six 
cases above enumerated is excluded by the 
doctrine (settled, perhaps, on authority 
rather than principle), that no covenant 
can be joint and several as to the covenan- 
tees. Of course it is not to be doubted 
that in this respect all contracts, whether 
under seal or not, are governed by the 
same principles. 

(1) Chanter v. Leese, 5 M. & "W. 698, 
701 ; 1 Roll. Abr. 31, pL 9. 

(m) Ivans v. Draper, 1 Roll. Abr. 31 
pi. 9 ; Winterstoke Hundred's case, Dyer 
370, a. But see Jones v. Robinson, I 
Exch. 454, infra, note (c). 

(n) Bell V." Chaplain, Hardres, 321. 


interest of the payees is joint ; (o) but where the first payment 
is in several sums among the several payees, there, generally, 
their interest is several, (p) So if a sum in solido is advanced 
to one by many persons, the promise of repayment is a promise 
to all jointly ; (q) but if several sums are advanced separately 
by each, there the promise is to each severally, (r) And if the 
several persons raise the sum by separate and distinct contribu- 
tion ; but, when raised, it is put together and advanced as one 
sum, there the promise of repayment is to all jointly, (s) 

Both a joint obligation or right, and a several obligation or 
right may coexist ; for there may arise from the same contract, 
one joint duty to all, and also several duties to each of the 
parties, (t) 

In analogy with the rule in the case of contracts, it is well 
. established, that there can be no joint action for an injury, un- 
less that injury be a joint injury to the plaintiffs. Therefore 
husband and wife cannot sue jointly for assault and battery of 
them, or for slander of them, (u) 

Whatever rule be adopted as the leading principle of con- 
struction, the question whether the right created by a contract 
is joint or several, must be left in any particular instance so 
much to mere authority, that we close the subject with a refer- 
ence to the decisions collected in the note, (v) 

(o) Lane v. Drinkwater, 5 Tyr. 40 ; of plaintiffs has been passed upon. These 

Byrne v. Fitzhugh, id. 54. cases fall, it is evident, within one of four 

(p) Thomas and , Styles, 461 . classes : — Where a joint action was held 

(5) May V. May, 1 C. & P. 44. Money properly brought ; where it was held that 

advanced on the Joint credit of two par- a several action should have been joint ; 

ties may be recovered by them in a joint where a several action was held properly 

action against the person for whose ben- brought ; where it was held that a jomt 

efit it was paid. Osborne v. Hai-per, 5 action should have been several : — 
Eixst, 225. 1 . Where a joint action was held properly 

(r) Brand v Boulcott, 3 B. & P. 235. brought. 

is) May V. May, 1 C. & P. 44. Wakefield & Binglet v. Brown, 

(t) Story V. Richardson, 6 Bing. N. C. 9 Q. B. 209. Covenant. Bingley, bemg 

123 ; Peckham^i). North Parish in Haver- owner of a term of sixty-one years, granted 

hill, 16 Pick. 274. an annuitv to Samuel AV., and for secur- 

(«) 9 Ed. 4, 51 ; Cole v. Turner, 6 Mod. ing payment, assigned the term (wanting 

149. The husband should sue alone for one day) to Robert W. By indenture, 

the injury to him, and the husband and reciting these facts, Eobert W., at the 

wife should sue jointly for the injury to request of Samuel W. and of Bingley, 

her. Gazmsky e< iiz. u. Colburn, 11 Cush. demised, and Bingley demised and con- 

• finned the premises to Sophia B., at a rem 

(w) It is attempted m this note to collect payable to Samuel W., while the premises 

at least the most important cases in which remained subject to the annuity, and after^ 

the question of the propriety of the jomder wards to Bingley. Sophia B. covenanted 

CH. n.J 





Parties are not said to be joint in law, merely because they 
are connected together in some obligation or some interest 

to and with Samuel W. and Robert W., 
and their respective executors, &c., and 
also with and to Bingley, his executors, 
&c., to pay the rent, while the premises 
were subject to the annuity, to Robert [sic] 
W., and afterwards to Bingley, and also 
to make certain repairs. The action was 
upon the covenant to repair. Hdd, on 
demurrer, that Samuel W., being dead, 
Robert W. and Bingley could sue jointly. 

— Rose v. Poulton, 2 B. & Ad. 822. 
Covenant. Demui-rer. The covenant 
declared upon was, in terms, with the 
plaintiffs and G., jointly and severally. G. 
was also one of the covenantors, butiwas 
dead at the time of the bringing of the 
action. The court held, that whether or 
not one of the covenantees could, if he 
had chosen, have sued separately, the ac- 
tion, as brought, was well maintainable. 

— Pease w. HiKST, 10 B. & C. 122. A, 
wishing to obtain credit with his bankers, 
in 1817, prevailed upon three persons to 
join him in a promissory note, whereby 
they jointly and severally promised to pay 
the bankers or order £300. Upon two of 
the partners retiring from the banking- 
house, a balance was struck between the 
old and new firm, and the promissory 
note was delivered to the new firm, but 
not indorsed to them. Held, that tlie ac- 
tion was well brought in the name of the 
surviving members of the old firm. — 
KiTCHiN V. BnCKLET, T. Raym. 80 ; 1 
Lev. 109, s. 0. 1 Sid. 157, nom. Kitchin o. 
Compton. Covenant for repairs against 
lessee for years. One Randal demised 
the tenement to the defendant, and after- 
wards granted a moiety of the rever- 
sion to Kitchin, and afterwards the other 
moiety to Knight. Kitchin and Knight 
brought this action jointly. After verdict 
for the plaintiffs, it was moved in arrest 
of judgment, that the plaintiffs, being ten- 
ants in common, ought not to join. But 
(he court held that the action was proper- 

ly brought, and said : " This is a personal 
action merely, in which tenants in com- 
mon may join." — Vaux v. Dkapeh, 
Styles, 156, 203; 1 Roll. Abr. 31, pi. 9. 
Assumpsit. The several cattle of the 
two plaintiffs having been distrained, de- 
fendant, in consideration of £10 paid to 
him by the plaintiffs, promised to pro- 
cure the cattle to be redelivered to them. 
Held, on motion in arrest of judgment, 
that the joint action was good. Bx>lle, C. 
J., said : " The consideration given is en- 
tire, and cannot be divided, and there is 
no inconvenience in joining the action in 
this case ; but if one had brought the ac- 
tion alone, it might have been question- 
able." Jerman, J., dissented, and thought 
several promises should be intended. 

American Cases. — Smith v. Tallcott, 
21 Wend. 202. In an agreement under 
seal for the sale of lands, husband, wife, 
and tmstee of the wife, were parties of 
the first part. The trustee did not exe- 
cute the deed — though by an indorse- 
ment on the back (under seal) he bound 
himself to do what should be necessary 
on his part to cany the contract into effect. 
Held, that an action against tlie parties of 
the second part was properly brought in 
the joint names of husband, wife, and tras- 
tee. — Pearson v. Parker, 3 N. H. 366 
Plaintiffs, being sureties for defendant, dis- 
charged the debt, in part, with money 
raised upon the joint note of the plaintiffs, 
and in part witli their joint note given 
directly for the residue. Held, that their 
action against the principal debtor was 
well brought jointly. — Weight v. Post, 
3 Conn. 142. Twenty persons, desirous 
to support a public right of fishery, entered 
into an agreement to defend such right 
through a trial at law, each promising to 
pay his proportion of the expense to such 
of them as should be sued for occupying 
the fishery. Three of them were sued 
jointly, and, after an unsuccessful defence. 



[book T. 

which ib common to them both. They mlist be so connected 
as to be in some measure identified. They have not several and 

each paid from his private funds one third • 
part of the execution. Held, that these 
three could maintain a joint action against 
a fourth, to recover his twentieth part of 
tlie expense incurred ; the joint liability 
of the plaintiffs, coupled with defendant's 
promise, and not the payment of the 
money, being the cause of action. — 
Haughton v. Bayley, 9 Ired. L. 3.37. 
The two plaintilfs, each out of his own 
stock, delivered goods to defendant, to be 
peddled, and took a bond, payable to 
themselves jointly, for the faithful ac- 
counting therefor. Held, that they could 
maintain a joint action upon the bond, 
notwithstaniliii;:- their several interests. 
See also. Doe d. Campbell, et al. v. Ham- 
ilton, 13 Q B. 977 ; Beer v. Beer, 9 E. L. 
& E. 468 ; iSIagnay v. Edwards, 20 id. 264 ; 
Arden v. Tucker, 4 B. & Ad. 815 ; Powis 
V. Smith, 5 B. & Aid. S.'JO ; Wallace v. Mc- 
Laren, 1 Man. & R. 516; Townsend v. 
Kciile, 2 Camp, 190; Osborne v. Harper, 
.') East, 225; Miilv'lcy v. Lovelace, C.arth. 
289 ; Yate v. Koulcs, 1 Bulst. 25 ; Clem- 
ent V. Hcnlcv, 2 Roll. Abr. 22 (F), pi. 2; 
Parker v. GreL'ir, 3 Foster (N. H.), 416; 
Saunders v. .Johnson, ykin. 401. 

2. In the followinq cases it was held that 
a several action should have been joint. 

Lucas v. Beale, 20 Law Jour. (n. s.) 
C. P. 134, 4 E. L. & E. 358. Assumpsit. 
The plaintiff, acting on behalf of the 
members of an orchestra, to which he 
himself belonged, pIuikmI a proposal, " on 
behalf of the members of tlie orchestra," 
to continue their services, pr<)\-iilcd the 
defendant would guarantee certain salary 
then due to them. The defendant ac- 
cepted this proposition, bat failed to pay 
the salary due. The plaintiff alone 
brought an action foi' the whole money 
due to himself and the rest, and stated 
the contract to be with himself and the 
rest. The jury found that he acted on 
behalf of himself as well as the rest. 
Held, that the contract was joint, and 
that he could not recover. — Lockhart v. 
Baexakd, 14 M. & W. 674. Assumpsit. 
A handbill, relating to a stolen parcel, 
offered a reward to " whoever should 
give such infonnafion as should lead to 
the early apprehension of the guilty par- 
ties." The information was communi- 
cated first by plaintiff to C. in conversa- 
tion, afterwards to a constable by plaintiff 
and C. jointly. Held, that C. ought to 

have joined in the action for the reward 
— HOPKINSON v. Lee, 6 Q. B. 964. [For 
an abstract of this case, and for the com- 
ments made upon it by the Court of Ex- 
chequer, see note (j) supra,] — Btkne v. 
FiTZHUGH, 5 Tyr. 54, 1 C. M. & R. 613. 
Before Patteson, J., and Gurney, B. The 
agreement of defendant was that, in con- 
sideration of plaintiff and B. using their 
endeavors to charter ships and procure 
passengers on board of them, anrl not en- 
gaging with any other emigrant broker, 
they, the defendants, undertook to pay 
plaintiff and B. a commission of .£5 per 
cent, on the amount of the net passage- 
money made by the ships, one half to be 
paid to plaintiff, and the other half to B. ; 
Lane v. Drinkwater, being cited, held, 
that plaintiff, suing without B., should 
he nonsuited. — Hatsall v. Griffith, 
4 Tyr. 487. A hroker was employed to 
sell a ship belonging to three part-owners, 
tw^o of whom communicated with him. 
To them he paid their shares of the pro- 
ceeds of the sale; but, after admitting 
the third part-owner's share to be in his 
hands, refused to pay it to him without 
the consent of the other two. An action 
of assumpsit having been brought by the 
third part-owner for the share, held, that 
he was not entitled to recover. — Petrie 
V. Bury, 3 B. & C. 353. Covenant ; 
demun-er. The covenant declared upon 
was with the plaintiff and two others, 
for the use of a third party. The decla- 
ration aven'ed that the two other cov- 
enantees had never sealed the deed. 
Held, notwithstanding, that as all miyht 
sue, all must sue, and that the declara- 
tion was bad. — Southcote v. Hoare, 
3 Taunt. 87. Covenant upon an in- 
denture of three parts. Held, on de- 
murrer, that a covcTiant with A and B, 
and with every of them, is joint, though 
A is party of the first part, and B party 
of the second part, to the deed. — Gui- 
don V. RoBSON, 2 Camp. 302. Action 
by the drawer and payee of a bill of 
exchange against the acceptor. The 
bill sued upon was drawn payable to 
Guidon & Hughes, under which firm 
the plaintiff traded. There was no one 
associated with him as partner ; but he had 
a clerk named Hughes, and Lord Ellen- 
borough held tliat sucli elerk should have 
been joined. — Slingsp.y's Case, 5 Rep. 
18 b, s. c. 3 Leon. 160, s. c. 2 Leon. 

CH. II.] 



respective shares, whioh being united make a whole; but these 
together constitute one whole, which, whether it be an interest 

47, s. c. Jenk. Cent. 262. R. B. by 
deed coTenantod with four persons and 
their assigns, et dd et cum quoUbet eoritm, 
that he was lawfully and solely seized 
of a rectoi-y. Two of the covenantees 
brought covenant against R. B. and held 
ill, because it was a joint covenant, and 
the otliers ought to have joined. The 
Court said: "When it appears by the 
declaration that every of the covenantees 
hath, or is to have, a several interest or 
estate, there, when the covenant is made 
with the covenantees, et cum quoUbet eorum, 
these words, cum quoUbet eorum raaks the 
covenant several in respect of their sev- 
eral interests. As if a man by indenture 
demises to A black acre, to B white acre, 
to C green acre, and covenants with them, 
and quoUbet eorum, that he is lawful owner 
of all tlie said acres, &c., in that case in 
respect of the said several interests, by 
the said words et cum quoUbet eorum, the 
covenant is made several ; but if lie de- 
mises to them the acres jointly, then these 
words, cum quoUbet eorum, are void, for a 
man by his covenant (unless in respect 
of several interests), cannot make it first 
joint and then make it several by the 
same or the like words, cuvi quoUbet eorum ; 
for, although sundry persons may bind 
themselves el qnemUbet eorum, and so the 
obligation shall be joint or several at the 
election of the obligee, yet a man cannot 
bind himself to three, anU to each of them, 
to make it joint or several at the election 
of several persons for one and the same 
cause, for the court would be in doubt for 
which of them to give judgment, which 
the law would not suffer, as it is held in 3 
H. 6, ^^ b." See also, Bradburne v. Bot- 
field, 14 M. & W. 559 ; Sorsbie v. Park, 
12 M. & W. 146 ; Lane v. Dtinkwater, 5 
Tyr. 40, 1 C. M. & R. 599 ; English v. 
Blundell, 8 C. &. P. 332 ; Decharms v. 
Horwood, 10 Bing. 526 ; Hill v. Tucker, 
1 Taunt. 7 ; Anderson v. Martindale, 
1 East, 497 ; Spencer v. Durant, Comb. 
115; Thimblothorp w. Hardesty, 7 Mod. 
116; Chanter w. Leese rt ai. 4 M. & W. 
295 ; Wetherell v. Langston, 1 Exch. 
634 ; Foley v. Addenbrooke, 4 Q. B. 
197; Teed v. EUworthy, 14 East, 210; 
Scott V. Godwin, 1 B. & P. 67. 

American Cases. — SvvEiGART v. Berk, 
8 S. & R. 308. Seven of ten joint 
obligees brought an action (living the 
other obligees) against the obligor. Held, 

that it could not be maintained. Semble, 
an action could not have been maintained 
by one, although brought in respect of 
separate interests. — Dob v. Halsey, 16 
Johns. 34. Assumpsit by D. & D., part- 
ners, against H. M. being shown to be a 
member of the firm, held, that he ought to 
have been joined as plaintiflT. — Sims v, 
Harris, 8 B. Mon. 55. Debt on a penal 
bond. The bond was executed by the 
defendant in favor of the plaintiff and sev- 
eral others, as joint obligees. The plain- 
tiff brought the action alone to recover the 
penalty. Held, that the action was not 
well brought. AUter, if the action had 
been covenant on the bond ; for in that 
case, so far as each of the obligees in the 
bond has a separate interest in the per- 
formance of its stipulations, tlie cause of 
action is several, and not joint. See 
Pearce v. Hitchcock, 2 Comst. 388. — 
Tapscott v. Willia'jis, 10 Ohio, 442. 
Where lands descended to coparceners, 
with warranty, and they were evicted be- 
fore severance, it was held tliat one of them 
could not sue alone on the warranty for 
liis share of the damages. 

3. In the following cases a several action 
was held to be properly brought. 

Keigiitley v. Watson, 3 Exch. 716. 
[For an abstract of this case see note (j ) 
supra.} — Jones v. Robinson, 1 Exch. 
454. The declaration stated that the 
plaintiff and A B carried on business in 
copartnership ; and in consideration that 
they would sell defendant their business, 
and become ti'ustees for him in respect of 
all debts, &c., due to plaintiff and A B in 
respect thereof, defendant promised plain- 
tiff to pay him all the money he had ad- 
vanced in respect of the copartnership, and 
for which it was accountable to plaintiff, 
and also promised plaintiff and A B that 
he would discharge all the debts due from 
the plaintiff and A B as such copartners, 
and all liabilities to which they are sub- 
ject. The declaration then averred that 
plaintiff and A B did sell the business to 
defendant and became trustees for him in 
respect of all debts, &c., due to plaintiff 
and A B in respect thereo'', and that, at 
the time of the promise, plaintiff had ad- 
vanced a certain sum, for the non-payment 
of which the action was brought. On mo- 
tion in arrest of judgment, the defendant 
contended that the consideration moved 
from the plaintiff and A B jointly, and 



[book I. 

or an obligation, belongs to all. Hence arises an implied 
authority to act for each other, which is in some case carried 

therefore (as the consideration is the es- 
sential part of a contract, without which 
the promise is nothing), A B should have 
been joined as co-plaintiff; but the court 
hdd that the separate interest of the plain- 
tiff in the partnership fund was the con- 
sideration upon which the promise sued 
upon in this case was founded ; and, there- 
fore, the rule for which the defendant con- 
tended did not apply. — Palmer v. Spak- 
SHOTT, 4 Man. & G. 137. By an agree- 
ment, not under seal, between defendant 
of the one part, and plaintilf and F. of the 
other part — reciting that plaintiff and F. 
had assigned certain property to defend- 
ant for £150 apiece, and that it had been 
agreed that defendant should retain i£50 
out of each £1 50 — the defendant, in con- 
sideration of the two several sums of £50 
and .£50 so retained, agreed with plaintiff 
and F., their executors, &c., to indemnify 
plaintiff and F., and each of them, their 
heirs, executors, &c., and their, and each 
and every of their, estates and effects, 
from the costs of a certain action. Held, 
that plaintiff might maintain assumpsit 
upon this agreement without joining F. — 
Poole v. Hill, 6 M. & W. 835. Cove- 
nant. By articles of agreement, reciting 
that the defendant had contracted with 
J., as the agent of the plaintiff and the 
other owners of the property, for the pur- 
chase of the lands tlierein mentioned, the 
defendant covenanted with the plaintiff', 
and the several other parties beneficially 
interested, to peiform such contract by 
paying the purchase-money on a certain 
day, &c. HeMf that this covenant was 
several, and that the plaintiff might sue 
alone for the non-payment of his share 
of the purchase-money, witliout joining 
the other parties beneficially interested. — 
Place v. Delegal, 4 Bing. N. C. 426. 
Assumpsit. One Evans, as attorney for 
plaintiff's, executors of Miers, having sold 
an estate, to a share of the proceeds of 
which W., was entitled as legatee, and 
defendant claiming W.'s share of such 
proceeds, under an agreement with W. 
plaintiffs paid the amount to defendant, on 
receiving from him a guaranty in tliese 
terms : " Mr. John Evans, and also Messrs. 
Place & Meabry [the plaintiffs], as tlie 
executors of the will of the late Mr. Jolin 
Miers : In consideration of your having 
paid, &c., I hereby undertake to indemnify 
and save you and each of you harmless. 

&c. C. Delegal." Held, that plaintiff 
might sue on this guaranty without join- 
ing Evans. — Tiiackee v. Shepherd, 
2 Chitt. 652. The plaintiff and one R., 
being insurance brokers and partners, 
effected a policy of insurance on the de- 
fendant's ship. The premium was not 
paid to the underwriter till after R. had 
become bankrupt, when it was paid by the 
plaintiff alone out of his private property. 
The plaintiff brought this action alone to 
recover the amount of the premium thus 
paid. Udd, that the action was well 
brought. — Glossop v. Coljian, 1 Stark. 
25. Assumpsit. Plaintiff had held out 
his son as his partner, and had made out 
bills and signed receipts in their joint 
names; but held by the court of K. B. 
that he was not precluded from maintain- 
ing his action by showing that his son 
was not in fact his partner. — Davex- 
PORT V. Raokstrow, 1 C. & P. 89. Hul- 
lock, B., S. P. — Kell v. Nainisy, 10 B. 
& C. 20, 8. P. "A party with whom 
the contract is actually made may sue 
without joining otliers with whom it is 
apparently made." Parke, J. — Garret 
V. Taylor, 1 Esp. Nisi Prius, 117. 
"Tliree persons had employed the de- 
fendant to sell some timber for them, in 
which they were jointly concerned. Two 
of them he had paid their exact proper 
tion, and they had given him a receipt 
in full of all demands. The third now 
brought his action for the remainder, 
being his share ; and it was objected, that 
as this was a joint employment by three, 
one alone could not bring his action. But 
it was ruled by Lord Mansfield, that where 
there had been a severaitrr as above stated, 
that one alone might sue. 4 G. 3 MS." 
— KiRKMAN V. Newstead, 1 Esp. Nisi 
Prius, U7. " Action for the use and oe- 
eupation of a house. It appeai-ed that 
the house was the property of six tenants 
in common, to all of whom, except the 
plaintiff, the defendant had paid his rent; 
and this action was for his share of the 
rent. It was objected that one tenant 
in common alone could not bring this ac- 
tion, but that all ought to j.oin ; but Lord 
ifansjield overruled the objection, and the 
plaintiff recovered. Sitt. Westm. M. 1776, 
MS." [The above two cases from Espi- 
nasse's Nisi I'rius, are of doubtful author- 
itv. See note to Hatsall v. Griffith, 4 Tyr. 
488, and Walford on Parties, 466.] — 

CH. II.] 



very far. Thus, ii several plaintiffs sue for a joint demand, and 
the defendant pleads in bar an accord and satisfaction with 

WoTTON V. Cooke, Dyer, 337 b. Cove- 
nant. Three purchased lands jointly in 
fee and covenanted each with the others and 
their heirs, et eorum utrique, to convey to 
the heirs of those who happened to die 
first, their respective third parts. Two of 
the three having died, the heir of one of 
them brought this action against the sur- 
vivor, .alleging that he had not conveyed 
to him according to his covenant. It was 
moved, in ai-rest of judgment, that the 
covenant was joint, and not several, for 
the word " utrique " in Latin is conjurictim, 
and not separatim ; sed non allocatur, and 
judgment was given for the plaintiff. 

American Cases. — Hall v. Leigh, 8 
Cranch, 50. Plaintiff and P. consigned 
to defendant a quantity of cotton, of which 
they were joint owners. They gave de- 
fendant separate and different instnrctions 
for the disposition of their respective moie- 
ties, each distinctly confining'his instruc- 
tions to his own moiety. Judd, reversing 
judgment of circuit com-t, that plaintiff 
could maintain an action for the violation 
of his instructions, without joining P. — 
SwETT V. Patrick, 2 Fauf. 179. De- 
fendant conveyed land with warranty to 
A, B, and C. Held, on demurrer, that a 
several action on the warranty was well 
brought by A. — Sharp v. Conkling, 
16 Vt. 354. Covenant. By indenture 
between the plaintiff and others, of the 
first part, and the defendant of the other 
part, the defendant covenanted with the 
parties of the first part that he would turn 
from its natural channel a certain stream 
of water which flowed over the land of the 
covenantees ; and whereas, the water, when 
diverted, would pass over the land of the 
plaintiff, that he would so convey it as not 
to injure said land. The plaintiff brought 
the action without joining the other cove- 
nantees, and alleged breaches of both cov- 
enants. Held, that he might recover on 
the second covenant, but not on the first. 
Redjield, J., said the court were willing to 
abide by the rule that, where the interest 
in the subject-matter secured by the cov- 
enant is several,- although the terms of 
the covenant will more naturally bear a 
joint interpretation, yet, if they do not 
exclude the inference of being intended 
to be several, they shall have a several 
construction put upon them. See also 
Catlin V. Barnard, 1 Aik. 9 ; Harrold v. 
Whitaker, 10 Jur. 1004 ; Mills i;. Lad- 

brooke, 7 Man. & G. 218; Simpson v. 
Clayton, 4 Bing. N. C. 758 ; Withers 
u. Bircham, 3 B. & C. 254; Johnson w. 
Wilson, Willes, 248 ; Lloyd v. Archbold, 
2 Taunt. 324 ; Story v. Richardson, 6 
Bing. N. C. 123 ; Owston v. Ogle, 13 
East, 538; Lahy v. Holland, 8 GUI, 

4. In the following cases it was held that 
a joint action should have been severed. 

Sbaton v. Booth, 4 A. & E. 528. 
Assumpsit. A, B, & C, being interested 
in certain lands, but having no common 
legal interest in any portion of them, 
agreed together, according to their respec- 
tive interests, to put them up for sale, and 
the lands were so put up, under the direc- 
tion of their agents, in lots. Each lot was 
described in a separate paper, containing 
the conditions of sale, in which it was 
stipulated, among other things, that if the 
purchaser should be let mto the premises 
before payment of the purchase-money, 
he should be considered tenant at will to 
the vendors, and pay interest at the rate 
of four per cent, on the amount of pur- 
chase-money, as and for rent. Defendant 
bought four of the lots, and was let into 
possession, and held for several years 
without paying the pm-chase-money ; 
whereupon the vendors brought their joint 
action against him, to recover rent. Their 
declaration contained two counts : one 
upon the contract between the plaintiffs 
and defendant for the sale of the property; 
the other for use and occupation. Held, 
that the action could not be sustained on 
either count ; not on the first, because no 
joint contract with all the plaintiffs was 
proved ; hot on the second, because no 
joint ownership in the plaintiffs, and occu- 
pation under them was proved. — Wil- 
kinson V. Hall, 1 Bing. N. C. 713. 
Action of debt against lessee for double 
value, under stat. 4 Geo. II. c. 28, for 
holding over. Held, that tenants in com- 
mon could not maintain such action joint 
ly where there had been no joint demise. 
" If there be no joint demise, there must 
be several actions for rent, for a joint ac- 
tion is not maintainable except upon a 
joint demise." Tindal, C. J. — Sek- 
VANTE V. James, 10 B. & C. 410. Cov- 
enant. The defendant, who was master 
of a vessel, covenanted with the plaintiff 
and others, part-owners, and their several 
and respective executors, administrators, 



[book I. 

one of the plaintiffs, but without any allegation that the other 
plaintiffs had authorized the accord and satisfaction, the plea is 
nevertheless good, (w) For a release of a debt, or of a claim to 
damages, by one of many who hold this debt or claim jointly, 
is a full discharge of it, and this whether they hold this debt or 
claim in their own right, or as executors or administrators, (x) 
This has been extended to the case where the release is given 
by one of joint plaintiffs, who, although a party to the record, 
is not a party in interest, but whose name the actual parties in 
interest were obliged to use with their own in bringing the ac- 

and assigns, to pay certain moneys to 
tliem, and to their and every of their sev- 
eral and respL'l■ti^■c executors, administra- 
tors, and;:;ns, at u certain banlter's, 
and in such jxirU and proportions as were 
set against tlicir several and respective 
names. The action was brought by all 
the covenantees jointly. Ileld, that the 
covenant was several, and so the action 
not well brougltt, but each covenantee 
should have brought a separate action. — 
Ghaham v. Eorertson, 2 T. R, 282. 
Plaintiffs, together with A & B, being 
owners of one ship, and the defendant of 
another, a prize was taken, condemned, 
and shared by a;;rLcmeiit between them; 
afterwards the sentence of condemnation 
was reversed, and restitution awarded, 
with costs, whicli was paid solely by the 
plaintiffs, A and B having in tlie mean 
time become bankrtipts. An action could 
not be brought by the plaintiffs alone for 
a moiety of the restitution money and 
costs, because it was either a partnership 
transaction, wlien A and B ought to be 
joined ; or not, when separate actions 
should be l>rou;;lit by each of the persons 
paying. See also, Smith v. Hunt, 2 Chitt. 
142 ; Brandon !•. Hubbard, 2 Br. & B. 
11 ; Tippet V. Hawkcv, 3 Mod. 263 ; 
Makepeace u. Coutes, 8 Ma<s. 451, over- 
ruled in C;i|icn v. Barrows, 1 Gray, 376 ; 
Brand v. B.iulcott, 3 B. & P. 235;' Kelby 
V. Steel, 5 Esp. 194. 

American Cases, — BoGG3 v. CnKTiN, 
10 S. & R. 211. Two firms, C. & B. 
and J. & D., having become sureties for 
A., gave their joint and several note for 
the debt of A. Held, that the two firms, 
on payment by them of the note, could 
not maintain a joint action against A., it 
not appearing that the payment was made 
out of a joint fund of the two firms. " The , 
'action of assumpsit must be joint or sev- 

eral, accordingly as the promise on which 
it is founded is joint or several. Where 
the promise is express, there can be little 
diftieulty in determining to which class it 
belongs, as its nature necessarily appears 
on the face of the contract itself ; and if 
it be joint, all to whom it is made must, 
or at least may sue on it jointly. . But 
an implied promise, being altogether ideal, 
and raised out of the consideration only 
by intendment of law, follows the natm'e 
of the consideration ; and as that is joint 
or several, so will the promise be." Gib- 
son, J. — Caetiikae i\ Brown, 3 Leigh, 
98. C. covenanted with B. & J. that he 
would pay B. and J. $300, namely, to 
each of them one moiety thereof Held, 
a several covenant, so that B., as the sur- 
vivor of the two, could not maintain aa 
action to recover the whole sum. — Ul- 

MER V. CCNNINGIIAM, 2 GrCeul. 117. 

Assumpsit for money had and received. 
Goods, belonging to some and not to all, 
of sundiy joint debtors, were taken in exe- 
cution and wasted. /Lid, that all the 
debtors could not maintain a joint action 
against the shei-iff, and that those only 
ought to have sued whose property was 
actually wasted. 

(w) Wallace et al. v. Kensall, 7 M. & 
W. 264. 

(r) Bac. Abr. Release, D. E. ; Jacomb 
V. iiarwood, 2 Ves. Sen. 265; Murray k. 
Blatchford, 1 \\'end. 583 ; Napier et at. v. 
McLcod, 9 Wend. 120 ; Decker v. Liv- 
ingston, 15 Johns. 479 ; Pierson et al. v. 
Hooker, 3 Johns. 68; Austin et al. v. 
Hall, 13 Johns. 286 ; Bulkley et al v. 
Dayton, 14 Johns. 387 ; Bruen v. Mar- 
quand, 17 Johns. 58; Hekey et al. v. 
Fail-banks, 4 Mason, 206 ; Tuckerman v. 
Newhall, 17 Mass. 581 ; Wiggin v. Tudor 
23 Pick. 444. 


tion. (7/) Nevertheless, if in such a case the party taking the 
release, and pleading it in bar, is aware that the party giving it 
had no interest in the claim released, the court would disregard 
the release ; (z) and upon such facts as these the court have 
ordered the release to be given up and cancelled, (a) 

If two or more are jointly bound, or jointly and severally 
bound, and the obligee releases to one of them, aU are dis- 
charged, (b) Formerly a very strict and technical rule was 
applied to these cases ; thus, where an action was brought 
against one of three who were bound jointly and severally, a 
plea in bar that the seal of one of the others was torn off was 
held good. And where three were bound jointly and severally, 
and the seals of two were eaten off by rats, the court inclined 
to think the obligation void against all. (c) But if the seals 
had remained on until issue were joined, their removal after- 
.wards would not have avoided the bond, (d ) 

Where a technical release, that is, a release under seal, is 
given to one of two joint debtors, and the other being sued, 
pleads the joint indebtedness and the release, it is no answer to 
say that the releasa was made at the defendant's request, and 
in consideration that he thereupon promised to remain liable for 
the debt, and unaffected by the release ; (e) for this would be a 
parol exception to a sealed instrument ; or rather a parol re- 
newal in part, of a sealed instrument which was wholly dis- 
charged. This being the reason, it should follow that only a 
release under seal should have the effect of excluding this 
answer ; and the weight of authority is certainly and very 
greatly in favor of this limitation. (/) It has, however, been 
held in this country, that a release which is not under seal, to 

(</) Wilkinson et al. v. Lindo, 7 M. ken v. Brown, 1 Rawle, 391 ; Johnson v. 

& W. 81 ; Gibson v. Winter, 5 B. & Collins, 20 Ala. 435. 

Ad. 96. (c) Bayly v. Garford, March, 125 ; Sear 

(z) Gram et al v. Cadwell, 5 Cowen, ton v. Henson, 2 Show. 29. 

489 ; Legh v. Legh, 1 B. & V. 447. (d) Hichols v. Haywood, Dyer, 59, pi. 

(iij Barker et al. v. Richardson, 1 Y. &' 12, 13 ; Miehaell v. Stockworth, Owen, 8. 

J. 362. (e) Brooks u. Stuart, 9 A. & E. 854 ; 

(i) Co. Lit. 232 a; Bac. Abr. Release, Parker v. Lawrence, Hob. 70. 

G. ; Vin. Abr. Release, G. a ; Dean v. (/) Shaw v. Pratt, 22 Pick. 305 ; 

Newliall, 8 T. R. 168 ; Hutton v. Eyre, Walker v. McCuUoch, 4. Greenl. 421 ; 

6 Taunt. 289 ; Lacy v. Kyna.ston, 1 Lunt et al. v. Stevens, 24 Me. 534 ; 

Ld. Raym. 690, s. c. 12 Mod. 551 ; Harrison v. Close et al. 2 Johns. 448; 

Clayton v. Kynaston, Salk. 574; MiUi- Rowley v. Stoddard, 7 Johns. 210; Mo- 


one of many joint debtors, of his share or proportion of the 
debt, operates in law as a full discharge of all. (g) But though 
the word release be used, even under seal, yet if the parties, the 
instrument being considered as a whole and in connection with 
aU the circumstances of the case and the relations of the par- 
ties, cannot reasonably be supposed to have intended a release, 
it will be construed as only an agreement not to charge the per- 
son or party to whom the release is given, and will not be per- 
mitted to have the effect of a technical release ; (h) for a general 
covenant not to sue is not itself a release of the covenantee, but 
is so construed by the law, to avoid circuity of action ; and a 
covenant not to sue one of many, who are jointly indebted, does 
not discharge one who is a joint debtor with the covenantee, nor 
in any way affect his obligation, (i) 

It may be added, though not strictly within the law of con- 
tracts, that the effect of a release of damages to one of two 
wrongdoers is the same as a release of debt ; it is in its opera- 
tion a satisfaction of the whole claim arising out of the tort, 
and discharges all the parties, (j ) And in actions against two 
or more defendants for a joint tort, it has been said that dam- 
ages should be assessed against all jointly for the largest amount 
which either ought to pay. (k) The true rule, however, must 
be, that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for aU the in- 
jury he has received, and for this there should be judgment 
against all who joined in doing the wrong. Several damages 
should not be assessed ; but if they are, the plaintiff may elect 
which sum he will, and remitting the others, enter judgment for 
this sum against all. (l ) 

AUcster v. Sprague, 34 Me. 296 ; Pond v. s. c. 4 Mo. & P. 561 ; Dean v. Newhall, 

Williams, 1 Gray, 630. 8 T. R. 168. 

Iff) Milliken v. Brown, 1 Rawle, 391. ( ;) Brown v. Marsh, 7 Vt. 320. 

(A) Solly 0. Forlies, 2 Br. & B. 46 ; (i) Bull. N. P. 15; Lo%Tfield r. Ban- 

McAllcster v. Sprague, 34 Me. 296. croft, 2 Str. 910; Onslow v. Orchard, 1 

{i ) Lane et al. v. Owings, 3 Bibb, 247 ; Str. 422 ; Brown v. Allen et al. 4 Esp. 

Shed 0. Pierce, 17 Mass. 628; Couch v. 158; Austen v. Willward, Cro. E. 860; 

Mills, 21 Wend. 424 ; Rowley v. Stod- Smithson v. Garth, 3 Lev. 324. 

daid, 7 Johns. 209 ; McLellan !'. Cum- [1) Johns et al. v. Dodsworlh, Cro. C. 

berland Bank, 24 Me. 566; Bank of 192; Walsh w. Bishop, Cro. C. 243; Hey- 

Catskill V. Messenger ci al. 9 Cowen, 37 ; don's Case, 11 Rep. 5 ; Halsey et al. v 

Dnrell v. Wendell et al. 8 N. H. 369 ; Woodruff, 9 Pick. 555 ; Rodney v. Strode 

Bank of Chenango v. Osgood, 4 Wend. Carth. 19. 
607 ; Lancaster v. Harrison, 6 Bing. 731, 


No release by the party injured, or claimant, has the effect 
of discharging all, although given but to one, unless it be a 
voluntary release ; for if one of two who owe jointly, either a 
debt or compensation for a wrong, be discharged by operation 
of law, without the concurrence or consent of the party to whom 
the debt or compensation is due, he does not hereby lose his 
right to enforce this claim against those not discharged, (m) 
But it is said, that if the discharge by operation of law is at the 
instance of the plaintiff, or be caused by him, it then operates as 
a discharge of the oth^r debtors, (n) 

The legal operation of a release to one of two or more joint 
debtors may be restrained by an express provision in the in- 
strument, that it shall not operate as to the other. For if a 
release containing such a proviso be pleaded by the other in bar 
to an action against both, a replication that the action is 
brought against both, only to recover of the other, is good, (o) 

If an action be brought against many, and to this an accord 
and satisfaction by one be pleaded in bar, it must be complete, 
covering the whole ground, and fully executed. It is not 
enough if it be in effect only a settlement with one of the de- 
fendants for his share of the damages ; nor would it be enough 
if it were only this in fact, although in form an accord and 
satisfaction of the whole claim, (p) 

Joint trustees are not necessarily liable for each other, or 
bound by each other's acts. Each is liable for the acts of 
others, only so far as he concurred in them, or connived at 
them, actively or negligently. Each is, in general, responsible 
only for money which he has himself received ; and if he signs 
a receipt with the others, because the receipt would have no 
force without his signature, he may, at least in equity (unless he 
is himself in default), show that he did not receive the money, 
and thus remove or limit his liability ; but if this be not shown, 
the joint receipt is evidence against all. (q) A trustee may thus 

(m) "Ward u. Johnson et al. 13 Mass. B. 38 ; North v. Wakefield, 13 Q. B. 536. 

152. • See post, p. 285 

(n) Robertson «. Smith, 18 Johns. 459. (p) Anderson v. Turnpike Co. 16 

(o) Twopenny v. Young, 3 B. & C. Johns. 87 ; Clark v. Dinsmore, 5 N. H. 

211 s. c. 5 Dow. & R. 261; Lancaster w. 136; Rayne w. Orton, Cro.E.305; Lynn 

Harrison, 4 Mo. & P. 561, s. c. 6 Bing. et al. o. Bruce, 2 H. Bl. 317. 

726 ; Solly d al. u. Forbes et al. 2 Br. & (g) Pellows v. Mitchells al. 1 P. Wms. 


explain his receipt, because he is obliged to join with the others 
in giving one ; but a co-executor not being under this necessity, 
it is said that he is bound by the receipt he signs, (r) And, in 
general, any co-executor or co-trustee who does jointly with the 
others any act which it is not necessary for him to do, is bound 
thereby to any party who shall suffer therefrom, (s) 

If two or more persons are bound jointly to pay a sum of 
money, and one of them dies, at common law his death not 
only severs the joinder, but terminates the liability which be- 
longed to him, so that it cannot be enforced against his repre- 
sentatives; (t) but if they were bound jointly and severally, 
the death of one has not this effect, (u) K bound jointly, 
the whole debt becomes the debt of the survivors alone, and if 
they pay the whole, they can have at law no contribution 
against the representatives of the deceased, because this would 
be an indirect revival of a liability which death has wholly ter- 
minated, (v) But where the debt was made joint by fraud or 
error, equity will relieve by granting contribution ; as it will if 
the debt were for money lent to both and received by both, so 
that both actually participate in the benefit, (w) If the last 
survivor dies, leaving the debt unpaid, his representatives alone 
are chargeable, and have no contribution against the representa- 
tives of the other deceased obligor. 

Such were the rules of the common law ; but in most of the 
United States these rules are changed by statute. The repre- 
sentatives of the deceased continue to be bound by his obliga- 
tion. K the debtors \\'ere jointly bound, the creditor could bring 
but one action when all were alive, and that against all ; and 
then obtaining judgment and taking out execution against all, 
he might levy it on all or either as he chose, leaving them to 
adjust their proportion by contribution. After the death of a 

83, and Cox's note ; Westly v. Clarke, 1 Rutherford, 3 Br. & B. 302 ; Foster v 

Eden, 360 ; Griffin v. Macaulay, 7 Gratt. Hooper, 2 Mass. 572 ; Yorks v. Peck, 14 

476. Barb. 644. 

((■) Sadler v. Hobbs, 2 Br. Ch. 114; {u) Towers v. Moore, 2 Vem. 99; 

Chambers v. Minchin, 7 Ves. 198. May v. Woodward, Freem, 248. 

(s) Brice v. Stokes, U Ves. 319; Sad- Iv) See note (e), p. 32, post. 

ler u. Hobbs, 2 Br. Ch. 9.5, and note to Am. (w) Waters i-. Riley, 2 Har. & G. 

edition. 313; Simpson v. Vaughan, 2 Atk. 33; 

(<) Bac. Abr. Obligations, D. 4 ; Os- Yorks v. Peck, 14 Barb. 644. 
borne v. Crosborn, 1 Sid. 238 ; Calder v. 


joint debtor, the creditor cannot join the survivors and the 
representatives of the deceased in one action, even if the stat- 
ute gives the creditor, where one of many joint debtors dies, 
the same remedy by action as if the contract were joint and 
several ; inasmuch as an executor cannot be joined with the 
survivors in an action upon a contract which was originally 
joint and several, because one would be charged de bonis testa- 
toris, and the other de bonis propriis, which cannot be ; (x) but 
the creditor may elect which to sue. (y) He may sue either, or 
both, in distinct actions, and may levy his executions upon 
either or both. But he can get, in the whole, only the amount 
of his debt ; and the survivors and the representatives of the 
deceased, or the representatives of all the debtors, if all are de- 
ceased, have against each other a claim for contribution, if either 
pay more than a due proportion, (z) 

If one or more of several joint obligees die, the right of ac- 
tion is solely in the survivors, and if all die, the action must be 
brought by the representatives of the last survivor, (a) But 
if the right under the contract be several, the representatives 
of the deceased party may sue, although the other obligees are 
living, (b) 



Where two or more persons are jointly, or jointly and sever- 
ally, bound to pay a sum of money, and one or more of them 
pay the whole, or more than his or their share, and thereby 
relieve the others so far from their liability, tjiose paying may 
recover fiom those not paying, the aliquot proportion which 
they ought to pay. (c) Some things have been said about this 

(x) Kemp o. Andrews, Carth. 171; son u. Martindale, 1 East, 497 ; Stowell's 

Hall V. Hnifam, 2 Lev. 228. Admr. v. Drake, 3 Zabr. 310. 

(y) May v. Woodward, Freem. 248 ; (b) Shaw v, Sherwood, Cro. E. 729. 

Enys w. Donnithorne, 2 Burr. 1190. (c) Harbert's case, 13 Eep. 13 a, 15 

{z) Peaslee v. Breed, 10 N. H. 489; b; Layer w. Nelson, 1 Vern. 456; Tous- 

Bachelder v. Fiske, 17 Mass. 464. saint v. Martinnant, 2 T. R. 104 ; Kemp 

(a) Bolls o. Yate, Yelv. 177 ; Ander- v. Finden, 12 M. & W. 421 ; Browne v. 



[book I, 

right to contribution, in the preceding section ; we add that the 
persons not paying, but being relieved from a positive liability 
by the payment of others who were bound with them, are held 
by the law as under an implied promise to contribute each his 
share to make up the whole sum paid, (d ) And this rule ap- 
plies equally to those who are bound as original co-contractors, 
and to those who are bound to pay the debt of another or 
answer for his default, as co-sureties, (e) 

Lee, 6 B. & C. 689 ; Sadler v. Nixon, 
5 B. & Ad. 936 ; Holmes v. William- 
son, 6 M. & Sel. 159 ; Blacliett v. Weir, 

5 B. & C. 387 ; Lanchester v. Tricker, 

1 Bing. 201 ; Boulter v. I'eplow, 9 C. 
B. 193. In Offley and Johnson's case, 

2 Leon. 166 [1584], the Court of ICing's 
Bench held that one surety had no 
right at common law to recover con- 
tribution from a co-surety. " The first 
case of the liind in which the plain- 
tiff succeeded was before Gould, J., at 
Dorchester." Buller, J., 2 T. R. 105. 
— The action for money paid to recover 
contribution is founded upon the old writ 
de contribiUione faciendd. Tindal, C. J., 
Edger v. Knapp, 5 Man. & G. 758, citing 
Fitzherbert's Natura Brovium, 378, in 
the edition of 1794, p. 162. From the 
passage in Fitzherbert, as the English 
version is amended by the learned re- 
porter of Edger v. Knapp, 5 Man. & G. 
758, 759, it seems that a parcener dis- 
trained upon is entitled to contribution 
without any express agreement on the 
part of her coparceners, while to entitle 
a joint feoffee to contribution, under sim- 
ilar circumstances, the other feoffees must 
have agreed to contribute. In analogy 
to the case of feoffees, one partner, in 
order to entitle himself to recover con- 
tribution of his copartner is bound to 
show a contract independent of the rela- 
tion of partner : — Tindal, C. J., 5 Man. 

6 G. 759. It is not sufBcient for him to 
show that the payment made on account 
of his copartners was made by compulsion 
of law. Sadler v. Nixon, 5 B. & Ad. 
936. — In Hunter v. Hunt, 1 C. B. 300, 
plaintiff and defendant respectively were 
under-lessees, at distinct rents, of sepa- 
rate portions of premises, the whole of 
which were held under one original lease, 
at an entire rent. Plaintiff, having paid 
the whole under a threat of distress, 
brought an action against defendant to 
recover the proportion of rent due from 
him, as for money paid to his use : — 

Held, that the action was not maintain- 

(d) Contribution was at first enforced 
only in equity, and Lord Eldon regretted 
(not without reason, in the opinion of 
Baron Parle, 6 M. & W. 168), that courts 
of law ever assumed jurisdiction of the 
subject. It is universally admitted that 
the duty of contribution originates in the 
equitable consideration that those who 
have assumed a common burden ought 
to bear it equally; from this equitable 
obligation the law implies a contract, 
since all who have become jointly liable 
may reasonably be considered as mutually 
contracting among themselves with refer- 
ence to the duty in conscience. Lord 
Eldon, Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 
160, 169 (adopting the view taken by 
Romilly arguendo) ; Campbell c. Mesier, 
4 Johns. Ch. 334 ; Lansdale o. Cox, 7 
Monr. 401 ; Fletcher v. Grover, 11 N. H. 
368 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 11 iVIass. 359 ; 
Chaffee v. Jones, 19 Pick. 264 ; Horbach 
V. Elder, 1 8 Penn. 33 ; Powers v. Nash, 
37 Me. 322; Holmes v. Weed, 19 Barb. 
128; Yates v. Donaldson, 5 Md. 389.— 
Assumpsit for money paid is the usual 
action for enforcing contribution, and its 
propriety, before taken for granted, was 
confirmed' in Kemp v. Finden, 12 M. & 
W. 421. 

(e) The payee of a note, given by the 
defendant's testator as principal, neglected 
to present it to the executor within two 
years after the original grant of adminis- 
tration, and was by statute ban'ed of his 
action against him. The plaintiff who 
signed the note as surety was held not to 
be discharged by the creditor's neglect to 
present his claim, and having paid the 
note was entitled to recover the amount 
of the executor. Sibley v. McAUaster, 8 
N. H. 389. See also, Chipman v. Morrill, 
20 Cal. 130. Bachelder v. Fisk, 17 Ma.s8. 
464, was perhaps the earliest case where 
the executor of a deceased co-debtor was 
held liable at law for contribution. The 




The payment, to establish a claim for contribution, must be 
compulsory. Hence, if one of many who must pay a certain 
debt, might show if sued that he was bound to pay only a cer- 
tain proportion and could defend himself against a further 
claim, his payment of more than his share gives him no claim 
for contribution. (/) But this does not mean that there must be 
a suit, but only a fixed and positive obligation, (g) The law 
requires no one to wait t?r a suit, if he has no defence ; and 
not always, even if he has a defence, (h) And if he resists a 
suit in which he has no sufficient defence, he cannot, generally, 
recover from the party for whom he pays, the costs of this 
suit, (i) And where a contract is broken, the surety may 

court there met the technical objections 
that were raised, with the maxim, Obi 
jus ibi remedium. And see McICenna v. 
George, 2 Rich. Eq. 15 ; Riddle v. Bow- 
man, 7 Foster (N. H.), 236. 

The surviving surety on a joint admin- 
istration bond, on account of which he 
was compelled to make large payments, 
sought to recover contribution from the 
representatives of a deceased co-surety : — 
it was held, that in the case of a joint 
bond, the remedy at law survives against 
the surviving obligor, and is lost against 
the representatives of him who dies first ; 
that where all the obligors are principals, 
equity will enforce contribution though 
the remedy at law is gone, but in case of 
a surety it will not interfere to charge him 
beyond his legal liability in the absence 
of fraud, accident, or mistake ; that al- 
though a surety who has paid the debt 
may compel his living co-surety to con- 
tribute, he has no such right either at law 
or in equity, against the estate of a deceased 
co-surety, because the liability of the 
creilitor was terminated by Iris death and 
cannot, be indirectly revived. Waters v. 
Riley, 2 Har. & G. 305. But see the able 
dissenting opinion of Archer, J. 

( /) Lucas V. Jefferson Ins. Co., 6 Cow. 
6.35. See also. Mutual Safety Ins. Co. a. 
Hone, 2 Comst. 235. 

(g) Pitt V. Purssord, 8 M.-& W, 538; 
Maydcw v. Forrester, 5 Taunt. 615 ; Da- 
vies V. Humphreys, 6 M. & W. 153 ; Lord 
Kenyan, Child v. Morley, 8 T. R. 614 ; 
Frith V. Sprague, 14 Mass. 455 ; Russell 
V. Failer, 1 Ohio St. 327. 

(h) It has been held that a surety pay- 
ing when he had a good defence, which 
defence, however, was not available to the 

VOL. I. 3 

principal if he had been sued by the credi- 
tor, may recover of the principal; Shaw 
u. Loud, 12 Mass. 461. 

(i) Whether contribution can be recov- 
ered for the costs of a suit sustained in re- 
sisting payment is left in doubt by the 
authorities. Lord Tenterden ruled against 
contribution for costs in Roach v. Thomp- 
son, Mo. & M. 489 ; Gillet v. Rippon, id. 
406 ; Knight v. Hughes, id. 247 ; in the 
latter case intimating that there might be 
a distinction between a case between two 
sureties (the case before him) and a case 
of surety against principal. But in Kemp 
V. Finden, 12 M. & W. 421, where the 
plaintiff and defendant had executed as 
sureties, a warrant of attorney, given as 
collateral security for a sum of money ad- 
vanced on mortgage to the principals, and, 
on default being made by the principals, 
. judgment was entered up on the warrant 
of attorney, and execution issued against 
the plaintiff, it was held that he was enti- 
tled to recover from the defendant as hia 
co-surety a moiety of the costs of such 
execution. Parke, B., said : " They were 
costs incuiTcd in a proceeding to recover 
a debt for which, on default of the princi- 
pals, both the sureties were jointly liable ; 
and the plaintiff having paid the whole 
costs, I see no reason why the defendant 
should not pay liis proportion." — A 
surety to a note Was subjected to costs in 
consequence of its non-payment by the 
principal ; there was an agreement in 
writing to save him harmless ; — held, that 
he was entitled to recover the costs so paid 
by him in an action against the principal. 
Bonney v. Seely, 2 Wend. 481. In Cleve- 
land V. Covington, 3 Strob. L. 184, it was 
held that as a general rule a principal was 



[book I. 

pay without suit and hold the principal, and a co-surety may 
pay and hold the co-sureties to contribution, {j) And the right 
to contribution arises although the co-surety paid the debt 
after giving a bond for it without the knowledge of the co- 
sureties, (k) 

If a plaintiff in an action ex contractu recovers judgment 
and takes out an execution, a defendant upon satisfying the 
execution makes out a claim for Contribution against other 
parties, by showing either that such parties were co-defendants 
in the action, or that they were jointly liable in fact for the debt 
which was made a cause of action against him alone. (I) But 

liiiblo for costs incurred by the surety, and 
was therefore incompetent as a witness in 
an action against him. Where a judg- 
ment, recovered against an insolvent prin- 
cipal, and his two sureties, was paid by 
one of them, helft, that he could recover 
of his co-surety one half of the costs. 
Davis V. Emerson, 17 Me. 64. And in 
Fletcher v. Jackson, 2.3 Vt. 593, the right 
of a co-surety to recover costs and ex- 
penses is said to depend altogether upon 
the question whether the defence was made 
under such circumstances as to be regarded 
as hopeful and prudent ; if so, the ex- 
penses of defence may always be recov- 
ered. — But not if the surety be notified 
that there is no defence. Bccklcy v. 
Munson, 22 Conn. 299. — In Boardman 
V. Page, II N. H. 431, where an action 
was commenced by the holder .of a note 
against all the co-signers, and judi/ment 
was recovered against one only, it was 
held that upon payment of damages and 
costs of the judgment, the party against 
whom the judgment was recovered was 
not entitled to contribution from the other 
co-signers in rcspc<-t to the costs — the same 
not being a burden common to all the co- 
signers of the Tiote. — It would seem not 
uru'easonalde to conclude, notwithstanding 
the 7(/s/ priiifi dc'.-isioits of Lord Ti.itlirihn, 
that where the party from whom contri- 
bution is sought was at the time of the 
former action directly lial)le fur the debt 
to the creditor, so that if the latter had 
chosen he might have been sued by him, 
contribution may bo recovered for the 
costs of the judgment, though not perhaps 
for costs incurred in resisting payment 
of the judgment. Yet in the late case 
of Henry v. Goldney, 15 M. & W. 494, 

496, an action ex contractu being brought 
against A, and he pleading in abatement 
tlie pendency of another action for the 
same cause against B, it was contended 
that the plea ought to be sustained, to 
prevent A from being twice vexed for the 
same cause ; but Afdersoii, B., observed, 
" How is A vexed by an action being 
brought against B ? B cannot recover 
against A his proportion of the costs." 

(j) It has been held in Kentucky that 
the principal must be insolvent to render 
a co-surety lialile to contribute to another 
who has paid the debt. Pearson v. Duck- 
ham, 3 Litt. 386; Daniel v. Ballard, 2 
Dana, 296. But this is opposed to the 
prevailing doctrine. Cowell v. Edwards, 
2 B. & P. 268 ; Odin v Greenleaf, 3 
N. H. 270. 

[k] Dunn v. Slee, Holt, 399 ; where it 
was also held by Parke, J., that time given 
to one surety is no bar to an action 
afterwards by that surety against a co- 

(/) In Murray v. Bogert, 14 Johns. 
318, it was held that where A, who clauns 
contribution of B and C, on the ground 
of having paid a judgment, shows neither 
that B and C were parties to the judg- 
ment, nor that the debt was a joint one, 
not arising out of a partnership transac- 
tion, he must be nonsuited. The report- 
er's abstract seems incorrect, in so far as 
it represents the court as holding that the 
mere absence of proof that the defendants 
were parties to the judgment was fatal to 
the claim of contribution. Such a doctrine 
ivDuld be directly in the face of Holmes v. 
Williamson, 6 M. & Sel. 158; Burnell i>. 
Minot, 4 Moore, 340 ; Boai-dman v. Paige, 
11 N. H. 431. 


in the latter case the joint liability must not be a liability as co- 
partners, (m) 

At law a surety can recover from his co-surety only that co- 
surety's aliquot part, calculated upon the whole number, with- 
out reference to the insolvency of others of the co-sureties ; («) 
but in equity it is otherwise, (o) 

If one co-surety takes security from the principal for his 
proportion of the burden, it has been held that the other cO' 
surety shall share in the benefit of it. (p) 

The contract of contribution is a several contract, (q) And 
hence a surety may release one of his co-sureties without bar- 
ring his right of action against the rest; for a release of one 
surety discharges the others only from such a proportion of the 
debt as they would be entitled to have recourse to the dis- 
charged party for, upon their payment of the whole debt, (r) 
But if two co-sureties pay the debt out of a joint fund, their 
right of action against the principal, and as it would seem 
against other co-sureties, is joint, (s) 

The contract on which the assumpsit is founded dates from 
the time when the relation of co-surety or co-obligor is entered 

into ; although the cause of action does not arise till the pay- 


(m) Sadler v. Nixon, 5 B. & Ad. 936 ; within the jurisdiction, as well as ineol- 

Bdger v. Knapp, 5 Man. & G. 758 ; vent co-sureties, are to be excluded in 

Murray v. Bogert, 14 Johns. 318 ; Pear- the calculation of the proportion to be 

Bon V. Skelton, I M. & W. 504, where contributed by those against whom pay- 

the former action was ex delicto. But ment can be enforced. McKenna v. 

where the joint contractors were, together George, 2 Rich. Eq. 15. 
with many others, partners in a joints (p) Miller v. Sawyer, Sup. Ct. of Vt. 

stock company, of which they were the 1858. 21 Law Rep. 489. 
contract committee men, contribution was (q) Kelby v. Steel, 5 Esp. 194 ; Gra- 

enforced between them on account of the ham v. Robertson, 2 T. R. 282 ; Brand 

joint liability incurred by them as such v. Boulcott, 3 B, & B. 235 ; Birkley v. 

committee. Boulter v. Peplow, 9 C. B. Presgrave, 1 East, 220 ; Parker v. EUis, 2 

493. Sandf. 223. 

(n) Browne v. Lee, 6 B. & C. 689 ; (r) Crowdus v. Shelby, 6 J. J. Mai-sh. 

Cowell W.Edwards, 2 B.& P. 268.— 5/iaw, 61; Fletcher v. Grover, 11 N. H. 368; 

C. J., Chaffee v. Jones, 19 Pick. 265; Fletcher w. Jackson, 23 Vf. 581. 
Currierw. Fellows, 7 Foster (N. H.), 366. (s) Osborne v. Harper, 5 East, 225; 

(o) Peter w. Rich, 1 Chane. 34; Cow- Boggs v. Curtin, 10 S. & R. 211; 
ell w. Edwards, 2 B. & P. 268. — And in Pearson v. Parker, 3 N. H. 366; Jew- 
Vermont the rule of equity has been held ett v. Coniforth, 3 Greenl. 107 ; Fletcher 
to be the rule of law also. Mills v. Hyde, v. Jackson, 23 Vt. 593 ; Contra, Gould 
19Vt. 59. So also, Henderson !). McDuf- u. Gould, 8 Cowen, 168. But Kelby d. 
fee, 5 N. H. 38, but there the decision went. Steel, 5 Esp. 194, on the authority of 
partly at least, on the necessity of the case, which this case seems to have been de- 
there being no court to administer equi- cided, is quite distinguishable from Ofr 
table relief. It has been decided in South borne v. Harper. 
Carolina, that co-sureties who are not 


ment. Hence the discharge of one of the joint debtors (by 
whatever cause) from his direct liability to the creditor, does not 
relieve him in law, any more than in equity, from his obligation 
to indemnify such of the remaining joint debtors as have borne 
more than their original proportion of the debt, (t) 

The undertaking which is to serve as the foundation of a 
claim of contribution must be joint, not separate and succes- 
sive. Thus, the second indorser of a promissory note is not 
liable to the first, though neither be indorser for value ; (m) 
unless there is an agreement between the indorsers that, as 
between themselves there shall be co-sureties ; (v) and this is 
true even if they are indorsers of accommodation paper, (lo) 
And a guarantor cannot be compelled to contribute in aid of a 
surety, {x) 

The right of contribution exists against aU who are sure- 
ties for the same debt, although their primary liability depends 
upon different instruments. Where two bonds, for example, 
are given for the performance of the same duty, and A and B 
sign as sureties in one, and C and D in the other. A, if he pay 
the debt, may in equity recover one fourth of the whole from 
each of the rest, (y) 

A party acqiiires a right to contribution as soon as he 
pays more than his share, but not until then ; (z) and conse- 

{t) Accprdinffly, where the liability of issory note, was not bound to make con- 
one joint maker of a promissory note tribntion to the plaintiff who was the first 
was continued l)y partial payments witliin surety and had paid the debt, the defcnd- 
six years, but the remedy of the holder ant having qualified his undertaking by 
a,2;aiiisl- the other was barred by tlic statute adding to his signatitre the words "surety 
of limitations, the debtor wlio continued for tlie above names." In Keith v. Good- 
liable could notwithstanding recover con- win, 31 Vt. 268, it was held that the guar- 
tribntion from the' other after paying tlie antor of a note on which sureties had 
del It, Peaslee v. Breed, 10 N. H. 489; already signed, stood in relation to those 
Borndman v. Paige, II N. H. 431 ; Howe who had signed before him as surety _/br 
V. Ward, 4 Grcenl. 195. ihem jointli/, not jointly with tbam. 

(ii) McDonald ;;. Magmder, 3 Pet. 470 ; (y) Deering v. Winchelsea, 2 B. & P. 

Decreet v. Burt, 7 Oush. 551. 270; Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swanst. 184; 

(y) Weston v. Chamberlain, 7 Cush. Craythoririe v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 160. 

404 : Hogue v. Davis, 8 Gratt. 4. See Senible, the same principle may be applied 

also Weslfall v. Parsons, 16 Barb. 645 ; at law; iJronson, C. J., Norton v. Coons, 

Pitkin p. Flanagan, 23 Vt. 160. 3 Denio, 130, 132; Chaffee v. Jones, 19 

(lo) MeNelly i\ Patchin, 23 Mo. 40; Pick 260,264; Enicks a. Powell, 2 Strob. 

Dunn 1'. Wade, id. 207. Eq. 196. 

(r) Longlcy v. Griggs, 10 Pick. 121. (j) Davies v. Humphreys, 6 M. & W. 

In Harris v. Warner, 13 Wend. 400, it 153; Lovd Eldon ex parte Gifford, 6 "Ves. 

was held that the defendant who was the '808; Lytle v. Pope, U B. Men. 297. 
ast of four sureties for H. in a jomt prom- 

CH. II.] 



quently the statute of limitations does not begin to run until 
then, [a) 

The law does not, generally at least raise any such implied 
promise, or right to contribution, among wrongdoers, or where 
the transaction was unlawful, (b) If money be recovered in an 
action grounded upon a tort it gives no ground for contribu- 
tion, (c) Still, however, contribution is sometimes enforced 
where he who is to be benefited by it did not know his act to 
be illegal, or where it was of doubtful character, (d) 

The implied promise and the right to contribution resting 
upon it, may be controlled by circumstances or evidence show- 
ing a different understanding between the parties; thus, a 
surety cannot exact contribution of one who became co-surety 
at his request, (e) 

(a) Davies v. Humphreys, 6 M. & W. 
153; Ponder v. Carter, 12 lied. L. 242. 

(6) Pitcher v. Bailey, 8 East, 171 ; 
Booth V. Hodgson, 6 T. R. 405. But in 
Bailey v. Bussing, 28 Conn. 455, it is said 
that tliis nile has so many exceptions that 
it can hardly with propriety be called a 
general rule. 

(c) Merryweather v. Nixan, 8 T. R. 
1 86 ; Farebrother v. Ansley, 1 Camp. 
343; Wilson v. Milner, 2 Camp. 452; 
Thweatt v. Jones, 1 Rand. 328. 

\d) Betts V. Gibbins, 2 A. & E. 57, 4 
Nev. & M. 64. There the defendants hav- 
ing sold ten casks of goods and sent them 
to the plaintiffs to deliver to buyer, sub- 
sequently ordered the plaintiffs to deliver 
a portion of them to another person, which 
order they obeyed. It was held, that a 
promise to indemnify the plaintiffs might 
be implied from the facts, on which they 
could recovey for the injury sustained in 
consequence of fulfilling the order,al though 
they had no right to detain the goods or 
change their destination — the general rule 
that between wrongdoers there is neither 
indemnity nor contribution not applying 
where the act is not clearly illegal in itself, 
and is done bond fide. — In Adamson v. 
Jarvis, 4 Bing. 66, 72, Best, C. J., said : 
" It was certainly decided in Menyweather 
V. Nixan, that one wrongdoer could not 
sue another for contribution ; Lord Kent/on 
however, said, 'that the decision would 
not affect cases of indemnity, where one 
man employed another to do afits, not un- 
lawful in themselves, for the purpose of 
asserting a right.'' This is the only de- 

cided case on the subject that is intelligible. 
There is a case of Walton v. Hanbury and 
others (2 Vern. 592), but it is so imper- 
fectly stated, that it is impossible to get 
at the principle of the judgment. The 
case of Philips v. Biggs (Hardres, 164), 
was never decided ; but the Court of 
Chancery seemed to consider the case of 
two sheriffs of Middlesex, where one had 
paid the damages in an action for an 
escape, and sued the other for contribution, as 
like tlie case of two joint obligors. Prom the 
inclination of the court in this last case, 
and from the concluding part of Lord 
Kenyon's judgment in Merryweather v. 
Nixan, and fiom reason, justice, and 
sound policy, the rule that wrongdoers 
cannot have redress or contribution against 
each other, is confined to cases where the 
person seeking redress must be presumed 
to have known that he was doing an 
unlawful act." — Wooley v. Batte, 2 C. 
& P. 417; a party having recovered 
damages in case against one of two joint 
coach proprietors for an injury sustained 
by the negligence of their sei-vants ; held, 
that such proprietor (he proving that he 
was not personally present when the acci- 
dent happened) might maintain an action 
against his co-proprietor for contribution. 
See also Ives v. Jones, 3 Ired. L. 538. 
But there can be no recovery in such case 
if the two proprietors are partners. Pear- 
son V. Skelton, 1 M. & W. 504. See 
Thweatt v. Jones, 1 Rand. 328. 

(e) Turner v. Davies, 2 Esp. 478; 
Byers v. McClanahan, 6 G. & J 256; 
Daniel v. Ballard, 2 Dana, 296 ; Taylor 


The commercial law of France, and of continental Europe 
generally, admits the right to contribution, and regulates it 
much as the law of England and this country. (/) The civil 
law whoUy rejects it. (g) But by a decreee of the Emperor 
Hadrian, a co-surety being sued, might require the plaintiff to 
proceed against aU liable jointly with him. He could not 
therefore be compelled to pay the whole unless through his 
own neglect, (h) 

V. Savage, 12 Mass. 98, 103. And see (g) Dig. 46, 1, 39. 

Thomas v. Cook, 8 B. & C. 728 ; Har- (A) Inst, 3, 21, 4. If the surety, on 

ris V. Wamer, 13 Wend. 400; Eobison paying the debt, took the precaution to 

V. Lvle. 10 Barb. 512; Keith v. Goodwin, obtain a subrogation, he might exercise 

31 Vt. 268. But such an agreement can- the actions of the creditor against his co 

not be shown by parol evidence when the sureties ; 1 Pothier on Obligations by 

guaranteed obligation is in writing. Nor- Evans, 291; Cod. 8, 41,11; Dig 46 

ton V. Coons, 2 Seld. 33. 1, 39. 

(/) Code Civ. Art. 2033; 1 Pothier on 
Obligations, by Evans, 291. 

CH. m-l AGENTS. 39 


Sect. I. — Of Agency in General. 

The law of agency is now of very great importance. Such 
is the complexity of human affairs in- civilized society, that very 
few persons are able to transact aU their business, supply all 
their wants, and accomplish all their purposes, without some- 
times employing another person to represent them, and act for 
them, and in their stead. Such person becomes their agent, 
and the person employing an agent is his principal. 

There are two principles in relation to the law of agency, on 
one of which it is founded, whUe the other measures the re- 
sponsibility of the principal for the acts of an agent. The first 
of these is, that the agent is but the instrument of the principal, 
who acts by him ; and a principal assumes the relations, ac- 
quires the rights, and incurs the obligations which are the pro- 
per results of his acts, equally, whether he does these mediately, 
or directly ; whether he uses an unconscious and material in- 
strument, or a living and intelligent instrument; whether he 
signs his name by a pen which he takes from the table, or by 
a man whom he requests to sign his name for him. In either 
case, the thing done Is the act of the principal ; and, to a con- 
siderable extent, the la'.v identifies the agent with the principal, 
although for some purposes, and in some respects, the agent in- 
curs his own share of responsibility, or acquires his own rights, 
by the act which he performs as the act of another. The second 
of these principles is, that, as between the principal and a third 
party who has supposed himself to deal with a principal by 
means of one purporting to be his agent, the principal is res- 


ponsible for and is bound by the acts of his agent on either of 
two grounds, which may co-exist, and may not. One of these 
is, that he has actually created this agency ; the other is, 
that he has, by words or acts, fuUy authorized the third party 
to believe the person to be his agent. If he has justified the 
belief of the third party, that this person had from him sufficient 
authority to do, as his agent, that precise thing, it is no answer, 
on his part, to say that the agent had no authority, or one 
which did not reach so far, and that it was a mistake on the 
part of the third party. It may have been his mistake, but 
the question then is, whether the principal led this third party 
into the mistake. And in deciding this question, aU the cir- 
cumstances of the transaction, and especially the customary 
usages in relation to such transactions, come into consider- 

This principle applies to, and may indeed be said to create, 
the distinction between a general agent and a particular 
agent. («) A general agent is one authorized to transact all 
his principal's business, or all his business of some particular 
kind. A particular agent is one authorized to do one or two 
special things. But it is not always easy to find a precise rule 
which determines with certainty between these two kinds of 
agency. A manufacturing corporation may authorize A to 
purchase all their cotton, and he is then their general agent for 
this special purpose, or to purchase all the cotton they may 

(a) See Jacques v. Todd, 3 Wend, nn-er cxi'cpt for those. In the case of a 

83; Anilfi'iion v. Coorley, 21 Wend, particnlfir aaciit, the scope of autliority is 

279 ; Savaye v. Rix, 9 N. H. 263 ; measured liy tlie express directions he has 

Wliitehcad v. Tuckett, 15 East, 400. received; in the case of a general agent 

The term Ai/niri/ seems to imply two the law permits usage to enter in and en- 

qnitc distinct things, namely, a contract large the lialrility of the princi]ial. This 

between principal and agent, and tlie usage, however, is not a uniform, un- 

]i'L:al means liy whicli the principal is varying rule; in other words there is no 

made, witliout his diiect partic i|iatioii, a common scope of autliority predicable of 

par/i/ to a contract with a third person, every general agent. To say of a certain 

No advantage, but only confusion, seems one that he is a general agent is not enough 

to result from blending these two things, to describe his jiowers, or to determine the 

If, in considering agency in the latter extent of his principal's liability; it is 

aspect, the domestic contract between next to bo ascertained for what particular 

pi-inciple and agent could be excluded business he is thus general agent. This 

from the mind, and reserved for scfiarate done, the agency is brought within a class, 

observation, it might conveniently be laid and the qualities attach to it which the 

down as the rule of law that the principal law, using the light of mercantile custom, 

is in all cases bound for acts of the agent affixes to the class at large, 
done within the scope of his aathoritij, and 

CH. m.J 



have occasion to buy in New Orleans, and then he may be 
called their general agent for this special purpose in that place. 
Or to purchase the cargoes that shall come from such a planta- 
tion, or shall arrive in such a ship or ships, or five hundred bales 
of cotton, and then he should rather be regarded as their parti- 
cular agent for this particular transaction. 

The importance of the distinction lies in the rule, that if 
a particular agent exceed his authority, the principal is not 
bound ; (b) but if a general agent exceed his authority the 

(b) Flemyng y. Hector, 2 M. & "W. 
178 ; Todd v. Emly, 7 M. & W. 427 ; 
8 id. 505 ; East India Co. v. Hensley, 1 
Esp. Ill ; Woodin v. Burford, 2 Cr. & 
M. 391 ; Jordan ;;. Norton, 4 M. & W. 
155; Sykes v. Giles, 5 M. & W. 645; 
Waters v. Brogden, 1 Y. & J. 457 ; Dan- 
iel V. Adams, Ambl. 495. And see Rea^ 
ney v. Culbertson, 21 Penn. St. 507. — 
But tliere is a material distinction between 
autkoritij and instructions uncommunicated, 
and not intended to be communicated to 
the tiiird party dealing witli the agent. 
Such instructions qualify the liability of 
the principal neither in the case of a gen- 
eral agency nor of a particnlar agency. 
The sound rule of law is set forth by 
Parker, C. J., giving the judgment of the 
court in Hatch v. Taylor, ION. H. 538 : 
" It is, we think, apparent enough, that all 
which may be said to a special agent, about 
the mode in which his agency is to be exe- 
cuted, even if said at tlie time that tlie 
authority is conferred, or the agency con- 
stituted, cannot be regarded as part of the 
authority itself, or as a qualification or 
limitation upon it. Tlxere may be, at all 
times, upon the constitution of a special 
agency, and there often is, not only an 
authority given to the agent, in virtue of 
which he is to do the act proposed, but 
also certain communications, addressed to 
the private ear of the agent, although they 
relate to the manner in which the author- 
ity is to be executed, and are intended as 
a guide to direct its execution. These 
communications may, to a certain extent, 
be intended to limit the action of the agent ; 
that is, the principal intends and expects 
that they shall be regarded and adhered 
to, in the execution of the agency ; and 
should the agent depart from them, he 
would violate the instructions given him 
by the principal, at the time when he was 
constituted agent, and execute the act he 
was expected to perform in a case in which 

the principal did not intend that it should 
be done. And yet, in such case he may 
have acted entnely witliin tlie scope of the 
authority given him,- and the principal be 
bound by his acts. This could not be so, 
if those communications were limitations 
upon the authority of tire agent. It is 
only because they are not to be regarded 
as part of the authority given, or a limi- 
tation upon that authority, that the act of 
the agent is valid, although done in viola- 
tion of them ; and the matter depends 
upon the character of tlie communications 
thus made by the principal, and disre- 
garded by the agent. Thus, where one 
person employs another to sell a horse, 
and instructs him to sell him for $100, if 
no more can be obtained, but to get the 
best price he can, and not to sell him for 
less than that sum, and not to state how 
low he is authorized to sell, because that 
will prevent him from obtaining more. 
Such a private instruction can with no 
propriety be deemed a limitation upon his 
authority to sell, because it is a secret mat- 
ter between the principal and agent, which 
any person proposing to purchase is not 
to know, at least until the bargain is com- 
pleted. And if no special injunction of 
secrecy was made, the result would be the 
same ; for from the nature of the case, 
such an instruction, so far as regards the 
minimum price, must be intended as a pri- 
vate matter between the principal and 
agent, not to be communicated to tlie per- 
sons to whom he proposed to make a sale, 
from its obvious tendency to defeat the at- 
tempt to obtain a greater sum, which was 
the special duty of the agent. It mil not 
do to say that the agent was not author- 
ized to sell, unless he could obtain that 
price. That is the very question, whether 
such a private instruction limits the au- 
thority to sell." pp. 545-547. ... "No 
man is at liberty to send another into the 
market to buy or sell for him as nis agent, 




principal is bound, (c) provided the agent acted within the ordi- 
nary and usual scope of the business he was authorized to trans- 
act, and the party dealing with the agent did not know that he 
exceeded his authority, (d) Any specific authority must be 
sti-ictly pursued ; as, for example, one known to be an agent to 
settle claims, and with specific authority to this effect, cannot 
be supposed to have authority to commute them, (e) The 

with secret instructions as to the manner 
in which he shall execute his agency, 
wliich are not to be communicated to 
those with whom he is to deal ; and then, 
when his agent has deviated from those 
instructions, to say that he was a special 
agent, — that the instructions were limita- 
tions upon his authority, — and that those 
with whom he dealt, in the matter of his 
agency, acted at their peril, because they 
were bound to inquire, where inquiry 
would have been fruitless, and to ascer- 
tain that, of which they were not to have 
knowledge. It would render dealing with 
a special agent a matter of great hazard. 
If the principal deemed the bargain a 
good one, the secret orders would con- 
tinue sealed ; but if his opinion was oth- 
erwise, the injunction of secrecy would be 
removed, and the transaction avoided, 
leaving the party to such remedy an he 
might enforce against the agent. Prom 
this reasoning, we deduce the general 
principle, that where private instructions 
are given to a special agent, respecting 
the mode and manner of executing his 
agency, intended to be kept secret, and 
not communicated to those with whom lie 
may deal, such instnictions are not to be 
regarded as limitations upon his author- 
ity; and notwithstanding he disi-egards 
them, his act, if otherwise witliin the scope 
of Ins agency, will be valid, and bind his 
emplo3'er." pp. .548, 549. See also Bert- 
hold V. Goldsmith, 24 How. 536, where 
one who had been employed as a special 
agent for a particular purpose in reference 
to sales of property, in the profits of which 
he was to share, was declared in regard to 
other transactions of his own relating to 
the disposal of the same property, not to 
be a partner as to third parties, and neith- 
er a general or special agent. 

(c) Duke of Beaufort v. Neeld, 12 CL 
& F. 248, 273 ; Nickson v. Brohan, 10 
Mod. 109 ; Monk v. Clayton, MoUoy, B. 
2, ch. 10, \ 27. 

(d) Forman v. Walker, 4 La. An. 409 ; 
Campbell v. Hicks, 4 H. & N. (Exch.) 

(e) Kingston v. Kincaid, 1 Wash. C. C. 
454. That the authority given to the 
agent must in all cases be strictly pursued, 
see Robertson v. Ketchum, 11 Barb, 652. 
The exception, extending the principal's 
liability in favor of third parties, is only 
made where such third parties are igno- 
rant that restrictions have been imposed 
upon the agent. In Attwood v. Munn- 
ings, 7 B. & C. 283, Bayley, J., said : 
" This was an action upon an acceptance 
importing to be by procuration, and there- 
fore, any person taking the hill would 
know that he had not the security of the 
acceptor's signature, but of the party pro- 
fessing to act in pursuance of an author- 
ity from him. A person taking such a 
bill, ought to exercise due caution, for he 
must take it upon the credit of the party 
who assumes the authority to accept, and 
it would be only reasonable prudence to 
require the production of that authority." 
The authority in that case was contained 
in two powers of attorney, and it was de- 
cided that, taking the proper construction 
of them, the agent had exceeded his au- 
thority, and so the principal was not 
bound. This case is confirmed by With- 
ington V, Herring, 5 Bing. 442. Goods 
were shipped on board of plaintiff's ship, 
and by the bills of lading, which were 
indorsed to the defendants, Avere to be 
delivered on payment of frtight. The 
bills were indorsed by the defendants to 
their factors, to whom the goods were 
delivered, and the freight charged. As- 
sumpsit was brought against the defend- 
ants on the banlQ-uptcy of the factors, but 
was not sustained on the giound that au- 
thority to receive the goods was given 
only on immediate pnvmcnt of the freight. 
Tobin V. Crawford, "5 M. & W. 235. 
And see Hogg v. Snaith, 1 Taunt. 347 ; 
Acey V. Fernie, 7 M. & W. 157 ; E^lailo 
V. La Nauze, 1 Y. & Coll. 394 ; Maanss 
V. Henderson, 1 East, 335 ; Murray v. 
East India Co., 5 B. & Aid. 204 ; Gard- 
ner V. Baillie, 6 T. E. 591 ; with which 
compare Howard v. Baillie, 2 H. Bl. 
618; Btainback v. Bank of Virginia, 11 

PH. in.] AGENTS. 43 

rule is, as to the public, that the authority of a general agent 
may be regarded by them as measured by the usual extent of 
his general employment. (/) The obvious reason for this is, 
that the public may not be deceived to its injury by previous 
acts which the agent was fuUy authorized to do. By such 
authority the principal does, as it were, proclaim and publicly 
declare him to be his agent, and must abide the responsibility 
of so doing. It would not be right for the principal to say to 
one who dealt with his general agent; "you knew that he was 
my general agent, for I authorized you and everybody else to 
believe this, but in this particular instance I had revoked or 
limited the authority, and the revocation or limitation shall 
affect you although you did not know it." But a principal may 
well say to one who dealt with an agent for a particular pur- 
pose, it was your business first to ascertain that he was my 
agent, and then to ascertain for yourself the character and 
extent of his agency. 

"We think the distinction between a general agent and a 
special agent useful, and sufficiently definite for practical pur- 
poses, although it may have been pressed too far, and relied 
upon too much in determining the responsibility of a principal 
for the acts of an agent. It may indeed be said, that every 
agency is, under one aspect, special, and under another, general. 
No agent has authority to be in all respects and for all purposes 
an " alter ego" of his principal, binding him by whatever the 

Gratt. 269; Same w. Read, id. 281. Whitehead v. Tuckett, 15 East, 400. 

The ruling of Heath, J., in Hicks v. Han- But if an injury is to result to one man 

kins, 4 Esp. 114, seems to admit of ques- from the omission or neglect of an agent 

tion. Tor instance, where the authority of another, the principal must be held, 

of a general agent has been circum- liable. And when the defendants sent 

scribed, see Odiorne v. Maxcy, 13 Mass. their agent to employ the plaintiff, who 

178; White v. Westport Cotton Man. was a physician, to visit a boy who had 

Co., 1 Pick. 215 ; Salem Bank v. Glou- been injured while in their service, direct- 

cester Bank, 17 Mass. 1 ; Wyraan v. ing the agent to tell the plaintiff that 

HoUowell & Augusta Bank, 14 Mass. 58 ; they would pay hiin for his first visit, and 

Kerns v. Piper, 4 Watts, 222 ; Terry y. the agent neglected so to do, and em- 

Fargo, 10 Johns. 114; Reynolds w. Row- ployed the plaintiff generally to attend 

ley, 4 La. An. 409. Except the master the boy so long as he might need medi- 

of a vessel and an acceptor for honor, no cal aid, and the plaintiff attended upon 

agent can bmrow money on his principal's the boy on the credit of defendants, held 

account without special authority. Haw- that defendants were liable to the plam- 

tayne u. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 595. See tiff for his services in attending the boy. 

Dost, pp. 81 & 82. Barber v. Briton & HaU, 2G Vt. 112. 
(/) Pickering v. Busk, 15 East, 38; 


agent may do in reference to any subject whatever; and 
therefore the agency must be special so far as it is limited by 
place, or time, or the extent or character of the work to be 
done. On the other hand every agency must be so far general, 
that it must cover not merely the precise thing to be done, but 
whatever usually and rationally belongs to the doing of it. 

Of late years, courts seem more disposed to regard this 
distinction and the rules founded upon it, as altogether subor- 
dinate to that principle which may be called the foundation of 
the law of agency ; namely, that a principal is responsible, either, 
when he has given to an agent sufficient authority, or, when he 
justifies a party dealing with his agent in believing that he has 
given to this agent this authority, (g-) 

Where the agency is implied from general employment,, it 
may survive this employment, and will be still implied in favor 
of those who knew this general employment, but have not had 
notice of the cessation of the employment, and cannot be sup- 
posed to have knowledge thereof, (h) , Hence the common and 
very proper practice of giving notice by public advertisement 
when such an agency is revoked. 

In order to judge correctly of the extent of an agent's au- 
thority, the distinction must be noticed between those acts which 
are within his aulhoritij, and those which are only within an 
appearance of authority, for which the principal is not responsi- 
ble; for a principal is responsible only for that appearance of 
authority which is caused by himself, and not for that appear- 
ance of conformity to the authority which is caused only by the 
agent. An agent's authority is that which is given by the 
declared terms of his appointment, notwithstanding secret in- 
structions ; or that with which he is clothed by the character 
in which he is held out to the world, although not wilhin the 
words of his commission. Whatever is done under an authority 

(g) In Mechnnic3 Bank v. New Y. & quite insufficient to solve a great variety 

New H. R.R. Co., 3 Kernan, 632, it is of cases. It is unprofitable to dwell upon 

said by Constock J. in givinj; the decision that distinction." 

of the court of appeal* " Tliere are in the (/i) v. Harrison, 12 Mod. 345; 

books, many loose expressions concerning Monk v. Clayton, Molloy, B. 2, Cli. 10, 

the distinction between a general and a § 27, cited ;)cr CKn'am, 10 Mod. 110; Em 

special agency. Tlie distinction itself is mett v. Norton, 8 C. & P. 506. 
higlily unsatisfactory, and will be found 

on. nr.] agents. 45 

thus manifested, is actually within the authority, and the prin- 
cipal is bound for that reason ; for he is bound equally by the 
authority which he actually gives, and by that which, by his 
o-w-n acts, he appears to give. But it is obvious that an agent 
may clothe his act with all the indicia of authority, and yet 
the act itself may not be within either the real or apparent 
authority. The appearance of the authority is one thing ; and 
for that the principal is responsible. The appearance of the act 
is another ; and for that it seems the agent alone is responsible. 
It is a fundamental proposition, that one man can be bound 
only by the authorized acts of another. He cannot be charged 
because another holds a commission from him, and falsely 
asserts that his acts are within it. (i) This distinction has 
been well illustrated by recent adjudications. Thus a master 
of a ship is the general agent of the owners to perform all 
things relating to the usual employment of his ship, and, among 
other things, to sign bills of lading for goods put on board, and 
acknowledge the nature, quality, and condition of the goods. 
But if he signs a bill of lading for goods which have never 
been shipped, he exceeds his authority ; and although the act, 
judged by its appearance and the representation of the agent, is 
strictly within the authority, yet the principal is not bound, {k) 
So, if the master signs a bill of lading for a greater quantity 
of goods than those on board, the same principle applies. (I) 
And where the servant of a wharfinger fraudulently signed a 
receipt, purporting to be an acknowledgment that certain wheat 
had been delivered at his employer's wharf, no such wheat 
having in fact been delivered, and thereby wihuUy induced one 
C to pay the price thereof to the pretended vendor ; it was held 
that the wharfinger was not liable, the servant having authority 
only to give receipts for goods which had in fact been delivered 
at the wharf, (m) Again, where a raihoad corporation ap- 
pointed an agent to issue certificates for stock, upon a transfer 
on the company's books by a previous owner, and a surrender 
of that owner's certificate ; and the agent fraudulently issued 

(i) Per Comstock, J., in Mechanics (k) Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665. 
Bank v. New York & New Haven E. E. Co. U) Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Exch. 330. 
3 Kera. 599. • (m) Coleman v. Eiches, 16 C. B. 104. 


certificates for his own benefit, without a compliance with 
either of the above conditions, his acts were held to be beyond 
the scope of his authority, and his principals not bound, {n) 
And where an agent authorized in writing to purchase goods 
to a certain amount, had exceeded the amount, but assured a 
seller that he had not, and the seller sold the goods on this 
assurance, it was held by a majority of the court ( Wilde, J., 
dissenting), that the principal was not held, (o) We have some 
doubts of the last decision ; and, certainly, care must be taken 
not to extend this principle too far. Thus, an agent may be 
authorized to give notes for his principal in order to raise money 
to be used in the business of the latter. A third person may 
inspect the power, advance the money in good faith, and the 
agent appropriate it to his own use ; and this the agent may 
have intended at the time. In such a case, the principal would 
be responsible, not because the act of the agent appeared to be 
within the authority, but because the power actually included 
the transaction. A power given to an agent to borrow money, 
upon notes or otherwise, implies that the money may be paid 
to him, and so the whole transaction is strictly and literally 
authorized. The misappropriation of the proceeds by the agent 
is a mere breach of trust, relating to money in his hands, and 
upon the principles of trust, his intention to misappropriate 
would not affect an innocent party. But suppose the power to 
give the note is on its face conditional. It then has no exist- 
ence until the condition has been actually fulfilled. And if one 
advances money to the agent on his declaration that the condi- 
tions have been fulfilled, and it turns out that the conditions 
had not occurred on which the exercise of the power depended, 
then he was trusting to the representation of the agent, and 
must look to him alone. As the principal never authorized the 
transaction at aE, he is bound neither by the contract nor by 
the representation, (p) 

It has been held that " a general and special agent to transact 

(n) Mechanics Bank v. N. Y. & N. H. Bank v. N. T. & N. H. R. R. Co. 3 Keru. 

E. R. Co. 3 Kern, 599. 599. See North River Bank v. Aymar, 

(o) Mussey v. Bcecher, 3 Cush. 511. 3 Hill, 262. 
(p) Per Comstock, J., in Mechanics 

CH. in.] AGENTS. 47 

all manner of business," though created by a power of attorney 
under seal, does not nebessarily include therein authority to 
sell. Such a power is regarded as a vague and indefinite in- 
strument, under which a prudent man would not accept a title 
to property, (q) 

For the power of the agent to submit questions in which 
his principal is interested, to arbitration, see the section on 
Arbitration in the second volume. 



An agent, generally, may be appointed by parol, and so au- 
thorized to do any thing which does not require him to execute 
a deed for his principal, (r) He may be authorized by parol to 
make and sign contracts in writing, and it seems to be now 
settled that he may be authorized without writing, to make 
even those contracts which are hot binding upon his principal 
unless in writing signed by him. (s) And even a parol ratifica- 
tion' is equivalent to an original authority, (t) 

An authority is presumed or raised by implication of law, 
on the ground that the principal has justified the belief that he 
has given such authority, in cases where he has employed a 
person in his regular employment ; (m) as where one sends goods 

(<;) Hodge v. Coombs, 1 Black, 192. the principal. But see contra, Cooper v. 

(r) 2 Kent, Com. 612. The receipt of Rankin, 5 Binn. 613, and page 52, infra, 

an authorized agent is the receipt of the notes (m), (o). 

principal. Mackersy v. Ramsays, 9 CI. (s) Shaw v. Nudd, 8 Pick. 9 ; Ewing v. 

& F. 818, 850. — A tender made to an Tees, 1 Binn. 450; Clinen v. Cooke, 1 

authorized apent is as if made to his Sch. & L. 22 ; Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 

principal. Moffat v. Parsons, 5 Taunt. 234,250. — But by an express provision 

307. — With regard to the execution of of the Statute of Frauds, an agent, to 

contracts under seal, the rule of the com- grant or assign a term for more than 

mon law is adhered to with strictness, three years, or an estate of freehold, 

Gordon v. Bulkeley, 14 S. & R. 331. must be authorized thereto in writing. 

And in Banorgee v. Hovey, 5 Mass. II, 29 Car. II. c. 3, § 3. 

it was held (Sewell, J., dissenting), that a it) Maclean v. Dunn, 4 Bing. 722. 

sealed instrument executed in the name \u) Dowsw. Greene, 16 Barb. 72 ; Lyell 

of the principal by an agent, not author- v. Sanboum, 2 Mich. 109 ; Thompson v. 

ized under seal, could not be admitted in Bell, 26 E. L & E. 53a 
evidence in an action of assum^iit against 



[book I. 

to an auctioneer, or to a common repository room for sale, the 
bailee has an implied authority to sell, (v) And such presump- 
tions frequently arise in the case of a wife ; (w) or of a domestic 
servant ; (x) or of a son who has been permitted for a consid- 
erable time to transact a particular business for the father, (7/) as 
to sign bills, &c. ; or where one has been repeatedly employed 
to sign policies of insurance for another, (z) 

It must be remembered, however, that an agent employed 
for a special purpose, derives from this no general authority 
from his principal, (a) Where the belief of the authority of an 
agent arises only from previous action on his part as an agent, 
the persons so treating with him must, on their own responsi- 
bility, ascertain the nature and extent of his previous employ- 
ment, (b) This may be such as to estop the principal from 

(y) Lord Ellenhorourjh, Pickering 
Busk, 15 East, 38. 

(w) Prestwifk u. Marshall, 7 Bing, 565 
Huckman v. Fcrnie, 3 M. & W. 505 
Att'y-Gen. v. Riddle, 2 Cr. & J. 493 
Plimmer v. Sells, 3 Nev. & M. 422,— 
After separation, the wife is still her hus- 
band's agent for the procurement of such 
tilings as are reasonable and necessary for 
herself. Emmett v. Norton, 8 C. & P. 
.506. So where the person cohabited with 
is only u, mistress, and known to be in 
fact only a mistress, if she is allowed to 
pass ostensibly as wife. liyan u. Sans, 
12 Q. B. 460. 

[x) A master is not responsible for a 
contract entered into by a servant to 
whom he had always given cash for mak- 
ing purchases. Eusby v. Scarlett, 5 Esp. 
75. So with any particular agent who 
obtains on credit goods which the princi- 
pal gave him money to purchase. Lord 
Abinger, C. B., Plemyng v. Hector, 2 M. 
& AV. 181. 

(y) Watkins v. Yince, 2 Stark. 368. 

(z) Brockelbank l: Sugrue, 5 C. & 
P. 21 ; Haughton v. Ewbank, 4 Camp. 
88, where it was held sufficient proof 
of an agent's authority to subscribe a 
policy of insurance for an insurer, that 
the insurer was in the habit of paying 
losses upon policies so subscribed by bini, 
without producing the power of attorney 
under which the agent testified that he 
acted. — An authority to draw is not an 
authority to indorse ; Robinson r. Yar- 
row, 7 Taunt. 455; yet the fact that a 

confidential clerk had been accustomed to 
draw, taken in connection mth the fact 
that bis master had in one instance au- 
thorized him to indorse, and on two other 
occasions had received money obtained 
by his indorsement, is c^'idence from 
which a jury may infer a general author- 
ity to indorse. Prescott v. Flynn, 9 Bing. 
19. As to what will amount to proof of an 
implied authority to a clerk in a mercan- 
tile house to sign shipping papers in the 
names of bis principals, see Dows i;. 
Greene, 32 Barb. 490. 

(a) Rcynell v. Lewis, 15 M. & W. 517; 
Dawson v. Morrison, 16 Law J., C. P. 
240 ; Cox V. Midland Railway Co. 3 
Exch. 268 ; Rusby u. Scarlett, 5 Esp. 
75 ; Burness v. Pennel, 2 House of L. 
Cas. 519; Kaye v. Brett, 5 Exch. 269; 
Thatcher v. Bank of New York, 5 Sandf. 

{b) Schimmelpennich v. Bayard, 1 Pet. 
264 ; Parsons v. Armor, 3 id. 413 ; Blane 
V. Proudfit, 3 Call, 207 ; Kilgour v. 3?in- 
lyson, 1 H. Bl. 1 55, where a power given, 
on the dissolution of a partnership, to one 
of the partners to receive all debts owing 
to, and to discharge all claims against the 
late partnership, was held not to author- 
ize him to indorse a bill of exchange in 
the partnership name, tliough drawn by 
him in that name, and accepted by a 
debtor of the partnership after the dissola» 
tion. In Richardson v. Moies, 31 Mo. 430, 
it is said that when the partners had, prior 
to the dissolution, agreed with the holder 
of the note of a firm, that it should be 

CH. III.] 



denying his authority in the particular transaction ; but if not, 
then they have no remedy, unless against the agent himself 
who misled them, (c) 



As agency may be presumed from repeated acts of the agent, 
adopted and confirmed by the principal previously to the con- 
tract in which the question is raised, (d) so^najich agency may be 
confirmed and established by a subsequent ratification; the 
common law having adopted the civil law maxim, " omnis rati- 
habitio retrotrahitur et mandato cequiparatur." (e) The rule may 
be stated thus: where any one contracts as agent without 
naming a principal, his acts enure to the benefit of the party, 
although at the time uncertain or unknown, for whom it shall 
turn out that he intended to act, provided the party thus enti- 
tled to be principal ratify the contract, {g) And, on the other 

renewed upon part payment at maturity 
and a new note given for the balance, such 
agreement will be an authority to one of 
the partners, after the dissolution, to give 
a new note in the firm name in rcncw:il, 
and the termination of the partnership is 
not a revocation of such authority. 

KPoorie V. Trascr, 2 Bay, 269. 
I Townsend v. Inglis, Holt, 278; 
Haughton v. Ewbanli, 4 Camp. 88; Bar- 
ber V. Gingell, 3 Esp. 60. There tlie .ap- 
parent acceptor of a bill of exchange, set- 
ting up as a defence that his signature had 
been forged, it was held a good answer 
that the defendant had paid other bills 
of the drawer under similar circum- 
stances. And see Brigham v. Peters, 1 
Gray, 147. 

(e) 18 Vin. Abr. Ratihabitio ; Lucena v. 
Craiifard, 1 Taunt. 325 ; Clark's Execu- 
tors V. Van Eiemsdyk, 9 Cranch, 158; 
Fleckner v. United States Bank, 8 Wheat. 
363 ; Bell v. Cunningham, 3 Pet. 81 ; 
Hooe V. Oxley, 1 Wash. (Va.), 19; Moss 
V. Rossie Lead Mining Co. 5 Hill (N. Y.), 
137 ; Rogers v. Kneeland, 10 Wend. 218; 
Marsh v. Keating, 1 Bing. N. C. 198; 

VOL. I. 4 

Bigelow V. Dennison, 23 Vt. 565. — If 
any stranger, in the name of the mort- 
gagor or his heir (without his consent or 
privity), tender the money, and the raoit- 
gagee acceptetli it [which, however, he is 
not bound to do], this is a good satisfac- 
tion, and the mortgagor or his heir, agree- 
ing thereunto, may reenter into the land. 
Co. Lit. 206 b. 

(g) Wilson v. Tumman, 6 Man. & G. 
242. *' Ratum quis habere non potest quod 
ipsius nomine non est gestum.'^ See also, 
Saunderson v. Griffiths, 5 B. & C. 909 ; 
and Eouth v. Thompson, 13 East, 274; 
Poster V. Bates, 12 M. & W. 226; Hull 
V. Pickersgill, 1 Br. & B. 282. This doc- 
trine has frequent application in cases of 
marine Insurance. See Hagedom v. 
Oliverson, 2 M. & Sel. 485; Pinney v. 
Pairhaven Ins. Co. 5. Met. 192. — A 
notice to quit, given by an unauthorized 
agent, cannot be made good by an adop- 
tion of it by the principal after the proper 
time for giving it, the agent having acted 
in his own name in giving the notice, 
nor it seems, if he acted in the name 
of the principal. Doe v. Goldwin, 2 



[book I. 

hand, if the principal accept, receive, and hold the proceeds or 
beneficial results of such a contract, he will be estopped from 

Q. B. 143; Right v. Cuthell, 5 East, 
491.— In Bird v. Brown, 14 Jur. 132, 
a very important distinction was taken by 
the Court of Exchequer. A, a mcrcliant 
at Liverpool, sent orders to B, at New 
York, to purchase certain goods, wliich 
were shipped accordingly in five ships and 
consigned to A, who, after the receipt of 
the goods by one of them, stopped pay- 
ment on the 7th of April, 1846. B, pur- 
suant to directions from A, had drawn 
bills for the goods partly on A, and partly 
on C, ^vith whom A had dealings. D, a 
merchant at Liverpool, and who also had 
a house of business at New York, pur- 
chased there sevei-al of the bills, which 
were drawn at sixty days' sight, and dated 
some on the 28th, and others on the 30th 
of March, 1846. On the 8th of May, a fiat 
iti bankruptcy issued against A, and his 
assignees wci-e appointed. The other four 
vessels anived respectively on the 4th, 
5th, 7th, and 10th of that month, and im- 
mediately on the arrival of each, and 
while the transitus of the goods on board 
continued, D, on behalf of B, but not 
being his agent, and without any author- 
ity from him, gave notice to the masters 
and consignees, claiming to stop the goods 
in transitu. On the 11th of May the 
assignees made a formal demand of the 
goods still on board andundchvered, from 
the master and consignees of each of the 
four ships, at the same time tendering the 
freight ; but they refused to deliver them, 
and on the same day delivered the whole 
to D. (_)n the next day the assignees 
made a formal demand of the goods from 
him, but he refused to deliver them up. 
On the 28th of April, B hcanl at New 
York that A had stopped payment, and on 
the next day he executed a power of attor- 
ney to E, of Liverpool, authorizing him to 
stop the uoods in tnai^lta. This was re- 
ceived by E on th.c 13th of May, who on 
that day adopted and confirmeil the pre- 
vious stop])agc by D. B afterwards 
adopted and ratified all which had been 
done both by V) and li. Held, that the 
tide of A to the goods was not devested 
by the uitoNO stoppages in transitu, and 
consequently that trover for them was 
maintainable by the assignees against B. 
Pollock, 0. B., delivering the judgment, 
said: "The doctrine ' omnis ratihabilio et mandtito cvquiparatiir,' is 
one intelligible in principle, and easy in 

its application when applied to cases of 
coiilnid. If A. B., unauthorized by me, 
makes a contract on my behalf with J. S., 
which I afterwards recognize and adopt, 
there is no difficulty in dealing with it as 
having been originally made by my au- 
thority. J. S. entered into the contract 
on the understanding that he was deahng 
with me, and when I afterwards agree to 
admit that such was the case, J. S. is pre- 
cisely in the condition in which he meant 
to be ; and if he did not believe A. B. to 
be acting for me, his condition is not 
altered by my ado|)tion of the agency, for 
he may sue A. B. as principal at his 
option, and has the same equities against 
me if I sue, that he would have had 
against A. B. In cases of tort there is 
more diflSculty. If A. B. professing to 
act by my authointy, docs that which prima 
facie amounts to a trespass, and I after- 
wards assent to and adopt his act, there 
he is treated as having from the beginning 
acted by ray authority, and I become a 
trespasser, unless I can justify the act 
wdiich is to be deemed as having been 
done by my previous sanction. So far 
there is no difficulty in a]iplying the doc- 
trine of ratification even in cases of tort 
— the party ratifying becomes as it were a 
trespasser by estoppel — he cannot com- 
plain that ho is deemed to have authorized 
that which he admits himself to have au- 
thorized. The authorities, however, go 
much further, and show that in some cases 
where an act, which if unauthorized would 
amount to a trespass, has been done in 
the name and on behalf of another, and 
without previous authority, there a sub- 
sequent ratification may enable the party 
on whose behalf the act was done, to take 
advantage of it, and to treat it as having 
been done by liis direction. But this doc- 
trine must bo taken with the qualification 
that the act of ratification must take place ., 
at a time, and under circumstances, when 
the ratifying party might have himself 
lawfully done the act which he ratifies. 
Thus in Lord Audlei/'s case, a fine with 
proclamations was levied of certain land, 
and a stranger within five years after- 
wards, in the name of him wlio had right, 
entered to avoid the fine; after the five 
years, and not before, the party who had 
the right to the land ratified and confiimed 
the act of the stranger ; this was held to 
be inoperative, though such ratification 

OH. in.] 



denying an original authority, or a ratification, (h) And if a 
party does not disavow the acts of his agent as soon as he can 
after they come to his knowledge, he makes these acts his 
own. (t) Nor will the delay of a third party to assert his rights 
against the principal for the acts of the agent, discharge the 
former from his liability, if the relative position of principal 
and agent have not in the mean time been altered. But the 
failure of the principal to notify the agent of his dissent, does 
not, as between them, ratify the act; (k) for the agent knew 
his own want of authority. An adoption of the agency in 
part, adopts it in the whole, because a principal is not permitted 
to accept and confirm so much of a contract made by one 

mthin the five years would probably 
have been good. Now the principle of 
this case, which is reported in many 
books, Cro. E. 561 ; Moore, 457, pi. 630; 
Poph. 108, pi. 2, and is cited with appro- 
bation by Lord Coke in Margaret Podc/er's 
case (9 Rep. 106 a), appears to us to gov- 
ern the present. There the entry to be 
good must have been made within the five 
years ; it was made within that time, but 
till ratified it was merely the act of a 
stranger, and so had no operation against 
the fine ; by the ratification it became the 
act of the party in whose name it was 
made, bat that was not until after the five 
years — he could not be deemed to have 
made an entry till he ratified the previous 
entry — and ho did not ratify until it was 
too late to do so. In the present case the 
stoppage could only be made during the 
transitus ; during that period, the defend- 
ants, without authority from lUins, made 
the stoppage. After the ti-ansitus was 
ended, but not before, lUins ratified what 
the defendants had done ; from that time 
the stoppage was the act of Illins. But it 
was then too late for him to stop ; the 
goods had already become the property of 
the plaintiffs, free from all right of stop- 
page. We are therefore of opinion that 
there must be judgment for the plaintiffs." 
— It is somewhat remarkable, in view of 
the present state of the law, that it was 
at one time strenuously contended, that 
the doctrine of ratification reached less 
broadly in contract than in tort ; and that 
although a principal unknown at the time 
coiild afterwards adopt the act of the 
agent in the latter case, he could not in 
the former. See Hagedorn v. Oliverson, 

2 M. & Sel. 485, and per Parke, J., m Hull 
V. PickersgUl, 1 Br. & B. 287. 

(A) Holt, C. J., in Bolton v. Hillersden, 

I Ld. Raym. 224, 225 ; Thorold v. Smith, 

II Mod. 72; Byrne v. Doughty, 13 Geo. 
46 ; Johnson v. Smith, 21 Conn. 627. The 
principal, when he has once affirmed a 
contract made by the agent without au- 
thority, and even fraudulently, cannot 
afterwards disaffirm it ; bringing assumpsit 
against the third partv is an affirmance. 
Smith V. Hodson, 4 T.'R. 211, 217. Yet 
if the party, alleged to be principal, after 
denying that the agent had authority from 
him to purchase goods, receive them from 
the agent in pavTuent of a debt due from 
the latter, the original seller (whatever 
other remedy he may have) cannot hold 
such supposed principal liable as having 
ratified the purchase made by the agent. 
Hastings v. Bangor House, is Me. 436. 
— The ratification of an act of an agent, 
in order to bind the principal, must be 
with a full knowledge of all the mate- 
rial facts. Preeman v. Rosher, 13 Q. B. 
780; Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. 607; Penn., 
Del., and Md., Steam Nav. Co. v. Dan- 
dridge, 8 G. & J. 248, 323; Havs v. 
Stone, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 128; Copeland v. 
Mercantile Ins. Co. 6 Pick. 198. — Con- 
duct which would be sufficient to charge 
an individual as principal, may not amount 
to ratification in the case of a State. 
Delafield v. Illinois, 26 Wend. 192. 

(t) Bredin v. Dubarry, 14 S. & R. 27 ; 
Veazie v. Williams, 8 How. 134 ; Bene- 
dict V. Smith, 10 Paige, 126; McCuUoch 
V. Mcliee, 16 Penn. 289 ; Brigham v 
Peters, 1 Gray, 139. 

(i) Lewin v. Dillo, 17 Mo. 64 



[book I. 

purporting to be his agent, as he shall think beneficial to 
himself, and reject the remainder. {I) 

Where the party who undertakes to act as agent has affixed 
a seal to an instrument which did not need a seal, a parol rati- 
fication will make the instrument obligatory upon the principal 
as a simple contract, (m) And where one acting as agent has, 
without authority, entered into a contract in writing required 
by the Statute of Frauds to be in writing, the principal is bound 
by an oral ratification, (w) But it has been held, that a parol 
ratification cannot make that the deed of the principal which 
originally did not bind him fi-om the agent's want of an author- 
ity under seal, (o) 

The ratification of the tort of an agent does not, in general, 
relieve the agent from fiability ; although, by such ratification 
in tort as well as in contract, a liability is incurred by the 
principal, [p) 

(1) Wilson V. Poultcr, 2 Stia. 859; 
Smith !'. Hodson, 4 T. B. 211 ; Hovil v. 
Pacli, 7 East, 1 64 ; Brewer v. Sparrow, 
7 B. & C. 310; Wright v. Crookcs, 1. 
Scott, N. R. 685; Hovey v. Blanchard, 
13 N. H. 145 ; Farmers Loan Co. o. 
Walworth, 1 Coinst. 447 ; N. E. Marine 
Ins. Co. V. De Wulf, 8 Piclv. 56; Culver 
V. Aslil.v, 19 id. 300; Bigelow v. Dcn- 
nison, 23 Vt. 565 ; Hodaet v. Tatuni, 
9 Geo. 70 ; Elam u, Carruth, 2 La. An. 
375 : Cook V. Bank of Louisiana, id. 
324. It seems the delivery of money to 
the agent for payment by him to a per- 
son with whom liie agent had contracted 
without autliority, is such a ratification 
(thougli the delivery of tlio money be not 
made known to tlie otlier contracting 
party), tliat if the agent embezzle the 
money, tlie priniijia! is still bound by the 
contract. I.iOi-(l /■yimljniotif/li, in Kusby v. 
Scarlet, 5 E.-p. 77. — In llarn v. ilorris, 
4 Tyr. 485, trover was maintained against 
the finder of a bank-note for £20 by the 
owner. The defendant got the note 
changed at the Bank of England, and 
afterwards, being taken before the Lord 
Mayor, .£7 (being part of the proceeds of 
the note) were found upon her and were 
restored to the plaintiff. It was contend- 
ed tliat this receipt of the £7 was a ratifi- 
cation of the . defendant's act, and pre- 
cluded the plaintiff from treating it as a 
conversion ; and Brewer u. Sparrow, 7 

B. & C. 310, was cited. But Lord Lynd- 
hurst, C. B., said: "In that case the 
whole proceeds of the sale were taken ; 
this is an adoption of the act : here the 
receipt of the £7 does not ratify the act 
of the parties, it only goes in diminution 
of damages," — If the principal, upon be- 
ing informed of what has been done, by 
one acting as his agent, does not give no- 
tice of dissent in a reasonable time, his 
assent shall be presumed. Cairnes 0. 
BIccckor, 12 Johns. 300 ; Kichmond 
Manuf. Co. v. Stark, 4 Mason, 296. 

{in) Hunter v. Parker, 7 M. & W, 322; 
Despatch Line v. Bellamy Manuf. Co. 
12 N. H. 205 ; Worrall v. Munn, 1 Sold. 
229 ; Randall v. Van Vechten, 19 Johns. 
61 ; Bank of Metropolis «. Guttsehlick, 
14 Pet. 29 ; Mitchell v. St. Andrew's Bay 
Lanil Co. 4 Flor. 200 ; Wood v. A. R. 
R. R. Co. 4 Seld. 160; Crozier u. Carr, 
1 1 Tex. 376. But see Wheeler v. Nevins, 
34 Me. 54. 

(n) Maclean v. Dunn, 4 Bing. 722. 

(0) Steiglitz V. Egginton, Holt, 141, 
per Gibbs, C. J. ; Stetson v. Patton, i 
Greenl. 358 ; Despatch Line v. Bellamy 
Manuf. Co. 12 N. H. 205 ; Parke, B., 
Hunter D. Parker, 7 M. & W. 343. — In 
Blood V. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 7T-, Savage, 

C. J., advanced the opinion that a ratifi- 
cation in writing might suffice. 

(/)) It appears indeed to be said in 2 
Greenl. Evid. 5 68, that a man cannot 

CH. III.] 



An agent who has the power to appoint a sub-agent, may 
ratify his act, and thereby make it binding on the agent's 
principal, (q) 

become a trespasser by ratification. " If 
the act of the agent was in itself unlawful, 
and directly injurious to another, no sub- 
sequent ratification will operate to make 
the principal a trespasser ; for an authori- 
ty to commit a trespass does not result by 
mere implication of law. The master is 
liable in trespass for the act of his sei-vant, 
only in consequence of his previous ex- 
press command." But, as it seems, the 
cases recognize no greater difficulty in be- 
coming a trespasser by ratifying the tres- 
pass of the agent, than in becoming liable 
ex contractu by ratifying the agent's con- 
tract. In neitlier case can the principal 
be made liable, unless the agent, at the 
time of the tort or tlie contract, undertook 
to act for him ; but if the agent, though 
without any precedent authority, did un- 
dertake to act for the principal, and he 
subsequently ratify, " in that case," in 
the language of Tindal, C. J., Wilson v. 
Tamman, 6 Man. & G. 242, " the princi- 
pal is bound by the act, whether it be for 
his detriment or his advantage, and loheth 
er it be founded on a tort or a contract, to 
the same extent, as, by, and with all the 
consequences which follow from, the same 
act done by his previous authority." Wil- 
son V. Tumman was an action of trespass 
against T., who had ratified the trespass 
of agents ; but they in committing the 
trespass had not acted for T., but for an- 
other person ; and on this account it was 
held that T. was not liable. In Barker 
V. Braham 3 Wils. 376, De Grei/, C. J., 
said explicitly, " one assenting to a tres- 
pass after it is done is a trespasser." In Co. 
Lit. 180 b, it is stated, that "if A disseize 
one to the use of B, who knoweth not of 
It, and B assent to it, in this case, till the 
agreement, A was tenant of the land, and 
after the agreement, B is tenant of the land, 
but both of them be disseizors ; for omnis 
ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato oequipa- 
ratur." And where a bailiff seized a beast 
for a heriot where none was due, and the 
lord agreed to the seizure and took the 
beast, the whole court agreed that the lord 
was liable in trespass, and the only ques- 
tion made was, whether the plaintiff might 
elect to bring trover instead. Bishop v. 
Montague, Cro. E. 824. See also, Wil- 
son V. Barker, 4B. &Ad. 614,616, where 
4 Inst. 317, is cited by Parke, J. ; Hull v. 
Pickersgill, 1 Br. & B. 282, 286 ; Polloch, 

C. B., Bird v. Brown, 14 Jur. 134, cited 
supra, p. .50, note. This matter of tres- 
pass by ratification was very thoroughly 
discussed, and the law respecting it settled 
substantially as it has ever since remained, 
so early as 38 Ed. 3,18; Lib. Ass. 223, 
pi. 9, s. c. ; and see the resolution of the 
court stated Bro. Abr. Ejectione Custodie, 
pi. 5, 8, Trespass, pi. 113,256. — As to 
trespass with battery, or a trespass consti- 
tuting a statutory offence, see Bishop v. 
Montague, Cro. E.824; Hawk. P. C, B. 
2, ch. 29, § 4 ; but with this last compare 
Gould. 42; Moore, 53, pi. 1.55; and Co. 
Lit. 180 b, note 4. 

An interesting and important question 
arose in Buron v. Denman, 2 Exch. 167. 
The defendant, a naval commander, sta- 
tioned on the coast of Africa, witli instruc- 
tions for the suppression of the slave-trade, 
went beyond Ins in.^tructions in firing the 
baracoons of the plaintiff, a Spanish sub- 
ject, and carrying off certain slaves of 
which he was there lawfully possessed. 
The Lords of the Admiralty and the 
Secretaries of State for the foreign and 
colonial departments, respectively, by let- 
ter, adopted and ratified what the defend- 
ant had done. Seld, by Alderson, Plait, 
and Eotfe, BB., that such ratification was 
equivalent to a prior command, and ren- 
dered what otherwise would have been a 
trespass on the part of the defendant, an 
act of state for which the crown was alone 
responsible. Parke, B., doubted : " I do 
not say that I dissent ; but I express my 
concurrence with some doubt, because, on 
reflection, there appears to me a consider- 
able distinction between the present and 
the ordinary case of ratification by subse- 
quent authority between private individ- 
uals. If an individual ratifies an act 
done on his behalf, the nature of the act 
remains unchanged, it is still a mere tres- 
pass, and the party injured lias his option 
to sue either ; if the crown ratifies an act, 
the character of the act becomes altered, 
for the ratification dues not give the party 
hijured the double option of bringing his 
action against the agent who committed 
the trespass or the principal who ratified 
it, but a remedy against the crown only 
(such as it is), and actually exempts from 
all liability the person who commits the 

{q) Newton u. Bronson, 3 Kern, 587. 




The manner in which an agent should sign an insti-ument for 
his principal has given rise to some controversy. There has 
been a tendency to discriminate in this respect ; to say, for 
instance, that if A signs " A for B," this is the signature of A, 
and he is the contracting party, although he makes the contract 
at the instance and for the benefit of B. But if he signs " B 
by A," then it is the contract of B made by him through his 
instrument A. In the first case A is the principal ; in the second, 
B is the principal and A his agent. But the recent cases, and 
the best reasons, are, for determining in each instance and with 
whatever technical inaccuracy the signature is made, from the 
facts and the evidence, that a party is an agent or a principal, 
in accordance with the intention of the parties to the contract ; 
if the words are sufficient to bear the construction, (r) But it 
is still requisite that the name of the principal appear as such 
in the signature of a deed, (s) It has been regarded as an 
estabUshed principle, that no person is held to be the agent 
of another in making a written contract, unless his agency is 
stated in the instrument itself, and he therein stipulates for 
his principal by name, (t) In Stackpole v. Arnold, (m) Chief 

(r) See Mechanics Bank v. Bank of had signed his own name to a receipt for the 

Columbia, 5 Wlieat. 326, 337 ; Loii;^ «. deposit made upon the purchase of real 

Colburn, U Mass. 97; Abbey v. t'liase, estate sold to the plaintiff' at auction "for 

6 Cush. 54 ; Sheldon c. Kendall, 7 Cush. which a good and sufficient title is to be 

217 ; Wilks v. Black, 2 East, 142 ; Wil- given by J. H. and others ; " it was held, 

burn It. Larkin, 3 Blackf. 55 ; Hunter v. that this was a sufficient si;;uing by J. H. 

Miller, 6 B. Mon. 612; Whitehead v. within the statute o/'/rawc/s, although his 

Ecddick, 12 Ircd. L. 95 ; McCall v. Clay- signature did not appear in the subscrip- 

ton, 1 Bush. L. 422 ; Sydnor v. Hurd, 8 tion. 

Tex. 98; Giddens v. livers' Heirs, 12 id. (s) Bac, Abr. Leases, I. 10; Clarke ii. 
75 ; Johuhon v. Smith, 21 Conn. 627 ; Courtney, 5 Pet. 319, 350. See Beck- 
Rogers I). March, 33 Me. 106 ; Southern ham v. Drake, 9 M. & W. 79. 
Ins. Co V. Gray, 3 Flor. 262; Hicks v. (t) Long v. Colburn, 11 Mass. 97, 
llinde, 9 Barb. 528. But see Moss u. Magill v. Hinsrlale, 6 Conn. 464 ; Han- 
Livingston, 4 Comst. 208 ; Lennard v. cock o. Fairfield, 30 Me. 299. 
Robinson, 32 E. L. & E. 127. In Binck- (u) II Mass. 27. 
nj}' !;. Hagadorn, 1 Duer, 89, an auctioneer 




Justice Parker considers this nile as applicable to every written 
contract. But the rule is qualified if not contradicted by au- 
thorifies of much weight, and we do not regard it as of great 
force except in cases of sealed instruments. (?;) Indeed, Chief 
Justitv. Parker, in the later case of New England Marine Ins. 
Co. V. De Wolf, (w) seems to confine it to these cases. The 
rule stated by Mr. Smith (2 Leading Cases, note to Thompson 
V. Davenport), seems now to be generally adopted, and is very 
reasonable. It is this ; parol evidence may always be admitted ' 
to charge an unnamed principal ; but not to discharge the actual 
signer, {x) As between an undisch^ged principal and a third 

(d) Evans v. Wells, 22 Wend. 324 ; 
Pirickney v. Hagadorn, 1 Duer, 89 ; 
Andrews v. Estcs, 2 Fairf. 267. The 
undisclosed principal, however, can never 
corne in and take advantage of a writ- 
ten contract entered into by his agent 
in a case where the latter has distinctly 
described himself in the writing as princi- 
pal. Lucas V. De La Cour, 1 M. & Sel. 
249; 2 Grecnl. Evid. § 281. In Humble 
V. Hunter, 12 Q. B. 310, which was an 
action of assumpsit on a charter-party 
executed, not by the plaintiff, but by a 
third person who in the contract described 
himself as the " owner " of the ship, it wtls 
heUi, that evidence was not admissible to 
show that such person was the plaintiff's 

(in) 8 Pick. 56; Northampton Bank v. 
Pejjoon, 1 1 Mass. 288, 292. 

{x) Humble v. Hunter, 12 Q. B. 
31CI ; Higgins v. Senior, 8 M. & W. 
831; Trucman v. Lodcr, 11 A. & E. 
594. — In Beckham v. Drake, 9 M. & W. 
79, where it was decided that a partner 
mijjht be held liable upon a written con- 
tract, signed by his copartners, but in 
which his name did not appear. Lord 
Abin(jer, C. B., and Parke, B., took occa^ 
sion to consider the case upon the princi- 
ples of Agency. They admitted that in 
the case of a bill of exchange or promissory 
note, none but the parties named in the 
instrument by their name or flj-m, can be 
made liable to an action upon it, but were 
of opinion that all other written contracts, 
not under seal, stand upon the same foot- 
ing with regard to the parties who may 
be sued upon them, as contracts not writ- 
ten . The weight of American authority 
is ns yet opposed to the admission of parol 
evidence to charge an unnamed party. 
Many of the cases in which this broad 

doctrine was laid down by our courts, 
were cases of mercantile paper, yet the 
decisions evidently were not rested upon 
the peculiar character of this class of 
instruments. Whether American courts 
will be inclined hereafter to follow the 
English judges, and draw a line of dis- 
tinction which shall leave ordinary written 
contracts open to the admission of new 
parties, remains to be seen. It is certain, 
however, that considerations deserving 
great attention may be urged against the 
admissibility of parol evidence to charge 
with liability upon a written contract a 
party not referred to be in it. See Long 
V. Colburn, 11 Mass. 97; Stackpole v. 
Arnold, 1 1 Mass. 27 ; Bradlce v. Bos- 
ton Glass Co. 16 Pick. 3.50; Savage v. 
Itix, 9 X. H. 263; Minard v. Mead, 7 
Wend. 68 ; Spencer v. Eicld, 10 Wend. 
87 ; United States v. Parmele, Paine, C. 
C. 252; Fenlyw. Stewart, 5 Sandf 101. 
In Pinney v. Bedford Commercial Ins. 
Co. 8 Mot. 348, it was held, that when 
a part-owner of a vessel or its outfits 
effects insurance thereon in his own name 
only, and nothing in the policy shows 
that the interest of any other person is 
secured thereby, an action on the policy 
cannot be maintained in the names of 
all the owners, upon parol evidence that 
such part-owner was their agent for pro- 
curing insurance and that his agency 
and their ownership were known to the 
underwriters, and that the underwriters 
agreed to insure for them all, and that it 
was the intention of all the parties, in 
making the policy, to cover tlie interest 
of all the owners. And with this recent 
case agrees the decision of the Supi'eme 
Court in Graves v. Boston Mar. Ins. Co., 
2 Cranch, 419, 439. But in Huntingdon 
V. Knox, 7 Cush. 371, which was an action 



[book I. 

party, a letter of the agent informing' the principal of his action 
with the reply of the latter approving thereof, wiU be evidence 
of the agent's authority ; even though the terms stated in the 

by the plaintiff to recoyer the price of 
certain bark sold and delivered to the 
defendant under a contract in writing, by 
vhich one Geo. H. Huntingdon acknowl- 
edged to have received of the defendant 
a partial payment of $25, and in con- 
sideration thereof, agreed to deliver to 
the defendant the bark in question, it was 
decided that the plaintiff' Jkliitabel Hunt- 
ingdon, might show liv parol evidence 
that the contract was made by Geo. H. 
Hutingdon on her account, and that the 
bark delivered was her property, and that 
she was entitled to recover on the con- 
tract. Shaw, C. J., relies upon the case of 
Higgins V. Senior, and states the principle 
broadly thus : " Where a contract is made 
for the benefit of one not named, though 
in writing, the latter may sue on the 
contract jointly with otlicrs or alone, ac- 
cording to the interest. The rights and 
liabilities of a principal upon a written 
instrument executed by liis agent do not 
depend upon the fact of the agency ajD- 
pearing on the instrument itself, but 
upon the facts, first, that the act is done 
in the exercise, and second, within the 
limits of the powers delegated ; and these 
are necessarily inquirable into by evi- 
dence. '' Considerable stress is however 
laid upon the fact that this action was not 
brouglit upon the written contract itself, 
but for the price of goods .^old by the 
agent, from which the promise to pay 
implied by law, although prima fade to 
the agent, might be controlled by parol 
evidence that the contract was for the sale 
of property belonging to the principal, and 
sold by her through her agent. Upon this 
distinction this case may be reconciled 
with .Finney v. Bedford Commercial Ins. 
Co., wliicli was not, howc\-cr, alluded to 
in the case. Newcomb v. Clark, 1 Denio, 
226, was an action liy C. upon an agree- 
ment in writing with P., who, it was in 
pi'oof, was C.'s agent. /A/f/, that an ac- 
tion upon an express contract (not being 
a negotiable instrument), must be brought 
in the name of the party with whom it 
was made ; and it is not competent to 
sliow by parol that the promisee was the 
agent of another person for the purpose 
of enabling such person to maintain an 
action. And in Fenly y. Stewart, 5 
Sandf. 101, which was an action of as- 

sumpsit to charge the defendants as prin- 
cipals upon a contract with A. W. Otis & 
Co., to deliver 25,000 bushels of oats to 
the plaintiffs, and in which the Messrs. 
Otis were introduced and testified that at 
the time they signed the written agree- 
ment for the sale and delivery of the oats 
in their own name, they were the agents 
of the defendants ; it. was decided that the 
plaintiffs could not recover, and the court, 
denying the dictum of Baron Parle, in 
the case of Higgins v. Senior, that it is 
competent by parol proof to charge a 
party upon a contract in writing made 
by another person in his own name, 
stated the rule to be, " that where a con- 
tract is reduced to writing, whether in 
compliance with the requisitions of the 
Statute of Frauds or not, and it is neces- 
sary to sue upon the writing itself, there 
you cannot go otjt of the writing, or con- 
tradict or alter it by parol proof, and con- 
sequently cannot recover against a party 
not named in the writing ; but where the 
contract of sale has been executed so that 
an action may be maintained for the price 
of the goods irrespective of the writing, 
there the party who has had the benefit of' 
the sale may be held liable, unless the 
vendor, knowing who the principal is, has 
elected to consider the agent his debtor." 
The true principle upon which this seem- 
ing contrariety of opinion may be recon- 
ciled, would ajijicar to be that laid down 
in the case of Fcniy v. Stewart, and may 
be stated thus : where a contract is re- 
duced to writing, and an action is brought 
upon the writing itself, no other persons 
can be made parties than those named in 
the instrument, hut when a right of action 
exists independent of the ^\'iiting, which is 
merely offered as evidence tending among 
other things, to establish that right, then 
the party having the legal interest or lia- 
bility, and for whom the contract was ac- 
tually made, may sue or be sued, although 
not named in the writing. But Hubbert 
V. Borden, 6 Whart. 79 ; Violett v. Pow- 
ell, 10 B. Mon. 347 ; Brooks v. Minturn, 
1 Cal. 481 ; and Cothay v. Fennell, 10 
B. & C. 671, are authorities to show 
that an unnamed jnincipal may come 
in to take the benefit of a written 'on- 
traet with an agent, who acted in his 
own name. 

CH. ni.] AGENTS. 57 

letter be not precisely those of the transaction, if the latter be 
not unreasonable nor unusual and in substance the same, {y) 

The case sometimes occurs where a person holding some 
office, signs his name, adding to it the name of his office, for 
the purpose of representing himself as an official agent, and 
preventing his personal UabiUty. But this mere addition sel- 
dom has this effect, being usually regarded only as a word of 
description, [z) 

See further as to the form of the signature, chapter sixth, on 



Where there is an authority expressly given or implied by 
law, it is importarit to determine its extent, scope, and duration. 
Where a principal has held one out as his general agent, or 
authorized parties so to regard him by continued acquiescence 
and confirmation, we have said that the principal cannot limit 
or qualify his own liability by instructions, or limitations, given 
by him to his agent, and not made known in any way to 
parties acting with such agent, (a) And where an agent is 
employed to transact some specific business, and only that, yet 
he binds his principal by such subordinate acts as are necessary 
to, or are usually and properly done in connection with the 
principal act, or to carry the same into effect, (b) And he has a 

{y) Campbell u. Hicks, 4 H. & N. 348; Munn u. Commission Co. 15 Johns. 

(Exch.),851. 44 ; Hatcli v. Taylor, 10 N. H. 538; Lob- 

(z) Mare y. Charles, 5 E. & B. 978. dell v. Baker, 1 Met. 193; Nickson v. 
See post, 122. Venable & Co. v. Curi & Brohan, 10 Mod. 109 ; llunquist v. Ditch- 
White, 2 Head, 582. In tliis last case it ell, 3 Esp. 64 ; Precious v. Abel, 1 Esp. 
was held that the acts of ofBcers de /acto 350; Howard v. Howard, 11 How. Pr. 
aa-e valid when thcv concern the public or 80 ; Lloyd v. West Branch Bank, 15 Penn. 
tlie rights of third persons who have an 172 ; Chouteaux v. Leach, 18 I'enn. 224. 
interest in the act done. But a different — E converso, it would seem that a tliird 
rule prevails wliere the act is for the bene- party dealing with an agent cannot have 
fit of the officer, because he cannot be the benefit against the principal of a 
allowed to take advantage of his own private arrangement between the latter 
wrong. and the agent, of which such third party 

(o) Pickering v. Busk, 15 East, 38 ; neither knew nor was entitled to know. 

Whitehead v. Tuckett, 15 East, 400; See Acey d. Fernie, 7 M. & W. 151. 

Commercial Bank v. Kortright, 22 Wend (6) Tredwen v. Bourne, 6 M. & W. 461 ; 



[book r. 

reasonable discretion as to the execution of his authority. Thus, 
an agent employed by government to collect debts, may, in the 
exercise of this discretion, give the debtor reasonable indulgence 
as to the time of payment, (c) But no officer of the United 
States can enter into a submission to arbitration vi^hich shall 
bind them, unless authorized by an act of Congress, (d) But 
an agent is not at liberty to exercise this discretion in the choice 
of a mode of performing the duty imposed upon him, if some 
one mode, and that only, is fixed either by usage or by the 
orders of his principal, if he is a general agent ; or, if he is a 
particular agent, by his principal's orders alone ; for then he 
must adopt that very mode and no other, (e) An authority to 
seU. does not carry with it authority to seU on credit, unless 
such be the usage of the trade ; but if there be such usage, then 
the agent may sell on credit unless specially instructed and 
required to sell only for cash, (g-) And if he sells for credit, 
having no authority to do so, he becomes personally respon- 
sible to his principal for the whole debt, (h) So is he also if 

Lord Ellenhorom/h, Helyear v. Hawke, 5 
Esp. 75 ; Withington r. Herring, 5 Bing. 
442; Goodson v. Brooke, 4 Camp. 163; 
Bamctt V. Lambert, 15 M. and W. 489; 
Denman v. Bloomer, 11 III. 177 ; Frank- 
lin V. Ezell, 1 Sneed, 497. So where the 
government is the principal and a statute 
the letter of authority. United States v. 
Wyngall, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 16. — If a party 
authorizes a broker to buy shares for him 
in a particular market, where the usage is, 
that when a purcliascr docs not pay for 
his sliares within a given time, the vendor, 
giving the purchaser notice, may resell 
and charge him with the diU'erenco ; and 
tlie broker, acting under the authority, 
buys at sucli market in his own name ; 
such broker, if compelled to pay a differ- 
ence on the shares through neglect of his 
principal to supply funds, may sue the 
princii)al for monev paid to his use. Pol- 
lock V. Stables, 12"Q. B. 765 ; Bayliffe v. 
Butterworth, 1 Exch. 425. 

(c) United States v. Hudson, 3 Mc- 
Lean, 156. 

(d) United States u. Ames, 1 Woodb. 
& M. 76, 89. 

(e) Daniel v. Adams, Ambl. 495. And 
tlie incidental, means the agent resorts to in 
carrying out his authority must be those 
wliich usually attend an agency of that 

kind : if an extraordinary exigence occur 
he has no right to have recourse to extra- 
ordinarv means to meet it. Hawtayne v. 
Bourne", 7 M. & W. 595. 

(q) Holt, C. J., Anon. 12 Mod. 514; 
Lord Ellenboroiigh, Wiltshire v. Sims, 1 
Camp. 258 ; Van Allen o. Vanderpool, 
6 Johns. 69 ; Robertson !>. Livingston, 
5 Cowen, 473 ; James v. MeCredie, 1 
Bav, 294 ; Dclafield r. Illinois, 26 Wend. 
22.3 ; Stoddard v. filellwain, 7 Kich. L. 
525; iLlten, J., in Grci-ly i>. Bartlett, 1 
Greenl. 172, 179, stated the rule of the 
law merchant to be that a factor may sell 
the goods of his principal on a reasonable 
credit unless restrained by instructions or 
a special usage. 

(A) Barksdale v. Brown, 1 Nott & 
McC. 517; Walker v. Smith, 4 Dallas, 
389. And the principal may also main- 
tain trover against the vendee. Bolt, 
C. J., Anon. 12 Mod. 514 ; and see 
Wiltshire v. Sims, 1 Camp. 258. — An 
agent to sell has no power to barter, and 
if he undertake to do so, the principal 
may recover the goods, although the 
party receiving them was ignorant that 
the agent was not the owner. Guerreiro 
V. Peile, 3 B. & Aid. 616. — A simple 
authority to sell wiU not authorize a sale 
at auction. Towle u. Leavitt, 3 Fostel 

CH. III.] 



he blends the accounts of his principal with his own, or takes a 
note payable to himself, (i) If an agent to whom goods are 
intrusted for a particular purpose, sell the same to a person, or 
in a manner not within the scope of his authority, the principal 
may disaffirm the sale and recover the goods of the vendee, if 
he have not justified the vendee in believing the authority ol 
the agent, [k) 

If the power of an agent be given by a written instrument, 
which instrument is known to the party contracting with him, 
such instrument must be followed strictly, and the power given 
by it cannot be varied or enlarged by evidence of usage ; (Z) 
because the effect of usage is properly limited to the manner in 
which the power is to be exercised ; and even in this respect it 
cannot control the language of the instrument, although it may 
aid in construing its words, or in supplying some that are 
needed. An agent employed to answer particular questions, and 
withholding some facts material to the conti'act, about which 

(N. H.), 360. — And it seems an authority 
to sell at auction will not support a pri- 
vate sale, although more is thus obtained 
than the agent was limited to in case of 
an auction sale. Daniel v. Adams, Ambl. 
495. — At common law an agent cannot 
pledge the goods of Ms principal without 
special authority. Paterson v. Tash, 2 
Stra. 1178; Daubigny v. Duval, 5 T. R. 
604 ; De Bouchout v. Goldsmid, 5 Ves. 
211 ; Rodriguez v. Heffernman, 5 Johns. 
Ch. 417 ; Bott v. McCoy, 20 Ala. 578. 
This has been modified in England by 
various statutes (4 Geo. IV. c. 83 ; 6 Geo. 
III. c. 94 ; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39). See Navul- 
shaw V. Browm-igg, 7 E. L. & E. 11 1 , s. c. 
13 id. 261. And in several States of this 
Union statutory enactments have been 
made providing that any consignee, agent, 
or factor, having possession of merchan- 
dise with authority to sell the same, or 
having possession of any bill of lading, 
permit, certificate, or order for the delivery 
of merchandise with the like authority, 
shall be deemed the true owner thereof so 
as to give validity to the sale, disposition, 
or pledge of such merchandise, as security 
for any advances, negotiable paper, or 
other obligation given on faith thereof. 
Maine R. S. (1841), ch. 43, sect. 2 ; Mass. 
Sup. to R. S. ch. 216, § 3 ; Pub. Laws 
of R. I. (1844), p. 280, sect. 2; N. Y. R. 
S. (1846J, vol. ii. part 2, ch. 4, tit. v. J 1-3 ; 

Laws of Penn. (1846), ch. ccccxvii. 3. 
— By the statutes of some of the States 
the pledge cannot retain the merchandise 
if he had notice that the factor was not 
the true owner before he made the ad- 
vances, for which the merchandise was 
pledged as security. But the statute of 
Mass. provides that the pledge shall hold 
good, " notwithstanding the person mak- 
ing such advances upon the faith of ."uch 
deposit or pledge may have had notice 
that the person with whom he made such 
contract was only an agent," provided the 
pledgee make the advances in good faith, 
believing that the agent had authority to 
enter into the contract. — If the merchan- 
dise was pledged to secure antecedent ad- 
vances, the pledgee acquires no other right 
or interest in the pledge than was possess- 
ed or could have been enforced by the 
agent or factor at the time of making the 
pledge. Me. R. S. (1841), ch. 43, sect. 
3 ; Mass. Sup. to R. S. ch. 216, sect. 4; 
Pub. laws of R. I. (1844), p. 280, sect. 3 ; 
N. Y. R. S. (1846), vol. ii. part 2, ch. 4, 
tit. 5, § 4; Laws of Penn. (1846), ch. 
ccccxvii. 4. 

(i) Symington v. McLin, 1 Dev. & B. 
291. See pos^ p. 95, n. (w). 

{k] Peters v. Ballistier, 3 Pick. 495 ; 
Nash V. Drew, 5 Cush. 422. 

(/) Delafield ,.. IlUnois, 26 Wend. 



[book I. 

no questions are asked, does not thereby vitiate the contract ; (m) 
it would be otherwise if such agent were employed to make 
the contract, (n) 

It has been held that a power to sell carries with it a power 
to warrant ; (o) but we think it the better rule, that an agent 
employed to sell, without express power to warrant, cannot give 
a warranty which shall bind the principal, unless the sale is one 
which is usually attended with warranty, in which case he 
may ; (p) thus an auctioneer has, in general, no implied author- 
ity to sell with warranty of the quality of what he sells, (q) 
But even where usage would permit a warranty, if the principal 
gives his agent express instructions not to waiTant, and the 
agent does warrant, although it has been said that such war- 
ranty is not binding on the principal, on the general ground that 
no principal is bound by the acts of his agent if such acts tran- 
scend his authority, (r) yet the better opinion is that the prin- 
cipal is bound by such warranty, where the buyer was justified 
by the nature of the case in believing that this authority was 
given, and had no means of knowing the limitation of the au- 
thority of the agent, (s) 

(m) Huckman o. remie, 3 M. & W. 

(n) Everett v, Desboi'ough, 5 Bing 
503 ; Fitzherbert v. Watlier, IT. U. 12. 

(o) Nelson o. Cowinp;, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 
336; Woodford <.. McClenahan, 4 Gil- 
man, 85 ; Hunter p. Jameson, 6 Ired. -L. 
252 ; Franklin v. Ezell, 1 Sneed, 497. 

{p) Gibson u. Colt, 7 Johns. 390 ; Hel- 
year u. Plawke, 5 Esp. 72 ; Groom r. 
Shaw, 1 Flor. 211. A sale liy sample is 
a warranty that the hulk shall con*espond 
with the sample; and a general authority 
to sell goods at wholesale is an authority 
to sell by sample. Andrews v. Kneeland, 
6 Cowen, -'i."i4. An a|.^ent to sell a horse 
may warrant his soundness. jVlexauder 
V. Gibson, 2 Camp. 555 ; Bradford v. 
Bush, 10 Ala. 386. See Brady v. Todd, 
9 C. B., (n. s.), 99 En-. C. L. 592. In 
Alabama, an authority to sell a slave has 
been held to imply an authority to war- 
rant. Skinner v. Gnnn, 9 Port. (Ala.), 
305 ; Gaines v. MeKinley, 1 Ala. 446. 
But an agent to delicer hai no authority to 
warrant. Woodin u. Bnrford, 2 Cr. & .M. 
891, 4 Tyr. 264. In judicial sales there 

is no waiTanty express or implied. The 
Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat. 616. 

(j) Blood V. French, 9 Gray, 197; 
Brady !,■. Todd, 9 C. B. (n. s.) 99. Eng. 
C. L. 592. 

(r) Lord Keni/on, Fenn v. Harrison, 3 
T. R. 760 ; Dodckridge, C. J., Seignior and 
Wolmor's case, Godb. 361. 

(s) Ashurst, J., Fenn v. Harrison, 3 
T. R. 760, who said : " I take the distinc- 
tion to be that if a person keeping livery 
stables, and having a horse to sell, directed 
his servant not to warrant him, and the 
servant did nevertheless warrant him, still 
the master would be liable on the warranty, 
because the servant was acting Avitlun the 
general scope of his authority, and the 
public cannot be supposed to be cognizant 
of any private conversation between the 
master and servant ; but if the owner of a 
horse were to send a .^iranger to a fair 
with express directions not to warrant the 
horse, and the hitter acted contrary to the 
orders, the purchaser could only have re- 
course to the person who actually sold the 
horse, and the owner would not be liable 
on the warranty, because the servant was 

OH. III.] 



The usage of the trade or business is of great importance in 
determining all these questions ; but this important distinction 
seems to be taken between the case of a written authority and 
that of an oral authority, namely, — where the authority is oral 
and is known to the party dealing with the agent, usage may 
enlarge and atfect the authority, or the conti-act ; but, as has 
been already stated, usage has not this power where the whole 
authority is in writing, and this is known to the party dealing 
with the agent, {t) 

If a principal sells goods by an agent, and the agent makes a 
material misrepresentation which he believes to be true, and his 
principal knows to be false, this is the falsehood of the principal 
and avoids the sale, (m) 

not acting within the scope of his employ- 
ment." So per Bayley, J., Piclcering v. 
Busk, 15 East, 45. 

(«) Attwooci V. Mannings, 7 B. & C. 
278, s. c. 1 Man. & R. 66; Schimmel- 
pennich w. Bayard, 1 Pet. 264. 

(») Schneider v. Heath, 3 Camp. 506. 
And this is true altliough the representa- 
tions are of such a character that the prin- 
cipal is not bound by them ; foi', as was 
said by Lord Abinger in Cornfoot v. Fowlce, 
6 M. & W. 386 : " It does not follow that 
because he is not bound by the representa- 
tion of an agent without autliority, he is 
therefore entitled to bind another man to 
a contract obtained by the false represen- 
tation of that agent. It is one thing to 
say that he may avoid a contract if his 
agent, without his authority, has inserted 
a warranty in the contract ; and another 
to say that he may enforce a contract ob- 
tained by means of a false representation 
made by his agent, because the agent had 
no authority." Cornfoot v. Fowke, 6 M. 
& W. 358, was an assumpsit for the non- 
performance of an agreement to take a 
ready-furnished house. The plaintiff had 
employed C. to let the house in question, 
and the defendant being in treaty with C. 
for taking it, was informed by him that 
there was no objection to the house ; but 
after entering into the agreement, dis- 
covered that the adjoining house was a 
brothel, and on that account declined to 
fulfil the contract. It appeared that the 
plaintiff knew of the existence of the 
brothel before, but C, the agent, di(i not. 
The majority of the court hdd, contrary 
to the opinion of Lord Abinger, C. B., 
that these facts furnished no ground' of 

defence to the action. This case has 
been veiy much questioned from the firet, 
and was overruled in Fuller ». Wilson, 3 
Q. B. 58. The judgment in the latter 
case was indeed reversed in the Excliequer 
Chamber, 3 Q. B. 68, but not on this 
point; Lord Abinger there sayinLr, 3 Q. B. 
76 : " The judgment of tlie Cuurt of 
Queen's Bench on tlie motion to enter a 
verdict was not given upon the facts now 
before us. We shall not reverse that if 
we give judgment now for the jilaintiff in 
error." In tliis country, Cornfoot v. 
Fowke was denied to be law by the court 
in Fitzsimmons o. JosUn, 21 Vt. 129 
And in Crump v. V. S. Mining Co., 7 
Graft, 352, where the plaintiffs author- 
ized their agent to procure subscriptions to 
a prospectus in the form of a subscription 
paper for the sale of stock in their gold 
mining company upon the terms prescribed 
in such prospectus, representing the mines 
to be in full and successful operation, with 
several particulars of description and rec- 
ommendation, and refeiTing to the last re- 
port of the directors of the company for a 
full description of the mines, buildings, and 
machinery, which paper was signed by the 
defendants ; it was held that they might, in 
an action upon the contract, prove that the 
agent at the time of procuring tlieir 
subscriptions, made representations in ad- 
dition to those contained in the prospectus 
and reports of the company, upon the faith 
of which the defendants became subscri- 
bers, hut which representations were false 
and fraudulent ; although it was insisted by 
the plaintiffs that the authority of their 
agent was limited and defined by the 
prospectus and report. 


All agent's acts in making or transferring negotiable paper 
(especially if by indorsement), are much restrained. It seems 
that they can be authorized only by express and direct author- 
ity, or by some express power which necessarily implies these 
acts, because the power cannot be executed without them, (v) 
But, to this extent, the principal will be held. Thus, if a prin- 
cipal supply an agent with his acceptances in blank, as to date, 
amount, time, and place of payment, but payable to the order 
of that correspondent, though part of these acceptances may 
bear upon their face that they are the second of exchange, yel 
if the correspondent fraudulently negotiate those marked 
second, the acceptor wiU be liable to an innocent holder 
for value for the amount which they represent, (w) And an 
express power to indorse does not imply a power to receive 
notice of dishonor, (x) 



In contracts by deed no party can have a right of action 
under them but the party whose name is to them ; («/) but in 
the case of a simple contract an undisclosed principal may 
show that the apparent party was his agent, and may put him- 
self in the place of his agent, (s) but not so as to affect inju- 
riously the rights of the other party, (a) How far this rule 

(u) Paipe V. Stone, 10 Met. 160; Ros- (y) Green v. Home, 1 Salk. 197; Fron- 

siter V. Eossiter, 8 Wend, 494. An tin u. Small, 2 Ld. Eaym. 1418. 

assurance by an agent that bills will be (i) Sldnner !). Stocks, 4 B. & Aid. 437 ; 

accepted by liis principal, though acted Cothay v. Fcnnell, 10 B. & C. 671 ; The 

upon by the party assured, is not as Duke of Norfolk v. Worthy, 1 Camp, 

between the latter and the principal to be 337 ; Garrett v. Handley, 4 B. & C. 

treated as equivalent to an acceptance of 664; Davis v. Boardman, 12 Mass. 80; 

the bills, 60 as to vest in the principal Rutland Railroad v. Cole, 24 Vt. 33 ; 

legal rights from the time such assurance Higgins v. Senior, 8 M. & W. 834; 

is given. Hoare z'. Dresser, 7 H. of L.Cas. Whitmore v. Gilmour, 12 M. & W. 808, 

290; Ilarrop c. Fisher, 100 Eng. C. L. where a bankrupt, under tlie circum- 

196. But see Layet v. Gano, 17 Ohio, stances of the case, was considered agent 

466; Forsvth v. Day, 46 Maine, 176. for his assignees. 

(«') Baiik of Pittsburg u. Neal, 22 (a) George v. Clagett, 7 T. R. 359; 

How. 96. Sims v. Bond, 5 B. & Ad. 389 ; Warner 

(x) Bank of Mobile v. King, 9 Ala. v. McKay, 1 M. & W. 591 ; Huntingdon 

279. • V. Knox,"7 Cush. 371 ; Violett v. Powell, 

CH. in.] AGENTS. 63 

is affected by the Statute of Frauds will be considered here- 
after, (b) By parity of reasoning, an undisclosed principal, 
subsequently discovered, may be made liable on such con- 
tract; (c) but in general, subject to the qualification that the 
state of the account between the principal and agent is not 
altered to the detriment of the principal, (d) It might be sup- 
posed that the party dealing with an agent whose agency is 
concealed, does not lose his election to have recourse either to 
the agent, or to his discovered principal, if the principal has 
prematurely/ settled with his agent, even without fraud; as 
where the agent bought on one month's credit and the prin- 
cipal paid him before the credit had expired, (e) But it may 
be open to question whether such settlement by the principal, 
although premature, if perfectly bond fide, in the course ol 
business, and free from all suspicion that it had been hastened 
for the purpose of interfering vsdth the seller, would not dis- 
charge the principal. We think it would. 

Where the name of the principal is disclosed at the time the 
contract is made by the agent, the former is the proper party to 
sue upon the contract. This is so whether he be a citizen of 
another State than that where his agent resided and made the 
contract or not. This doctrine is contrary to the rule laid 
down in Story's Agency as to contracts made for residents in a 
foreign State, and which was supposed to be the doctrine of 
the English cases at that time. But the doctrine has more 

10 B. Mou. 349. And see Harrison v. cipal, charge either at his election. Tliomp- 

Koscoe, 15 M. & W. 231. son v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 78; Wilson 

(h) And see p. 54, note (r), supra. See u. H.irt, 7 Taunt. 295; Railton r. Hodg- 

ivlso Bank of United States k. Lyman, in son, 4 Taunt. 576, n. (a); Robinson i\ 

the United States Circuit Court, 1848 Gleadow, 2 Bing. N. C. 161 ; Patterson ti. 

(reported 20 "Vt. 666, 673, 674), where Gandasequi, 15 East, 62; Higgins ii. 

the doctrine of Lord Abinger and Baron Senior, 8 M. & W. 834. But where a 

Parke in Beckham v. Drake, 9 M. & W. vendor takes the note of the .igcnt, which 

79, was recognized by Prentiss, J. shows him to rely upon the agent, he can- 

(c) Thompson v. Davenport, 9 B. & not afterwards sue the principal. Pater- 

C. 78; Cothay v. Fcnnell, 10 B. & C. son u. Gandasequi, 15 East, 62; Hyde w. 

671 ; Thomas v. Edwards, 2 M. & W. Paige, 9 Barb. 150; Bate v. Burr, 4 Har- 

216; Beebe'v. Robert, .12 Wend. 413; ring. 130. 

Upton V. Gray, 2 Greenl. 373 ; Nel- (d) Thompson v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 

son V. Powell, 3 Doug. 410; Hopkins 78; Lord Ellenborough, Kymer w. Suwer- 

V. Lacouture, 4 La. 64 ; Hyde v. Wolf, cropp, 1 Camp. 109. 

4 La. 234 ; Bacon v. Sondley, 3 Strob. (e) Kymer v. Suwercropp, 1 Camp. 

L. 542. — The party dealing with the 109; Waring v. Favenck, 1 Camp. 85; 

ap-ent may, when he discovers the prin- Heald v. Kenworthy, 28 E. L. & E. 537. 



[book I. 

recently been explained by the English Courts, and Judge 
Story's rule rejected. The doctrine never was generally received 
in this country, and in a recent case in the Supreme Court of 
the United States it was directly disavowed, (g) 



An agent is not personally liable, unless he transcends his 
agency, or departs from its provisions, (A) or unless he expressly 
pledges his own liability, (i) in which case he is liable although 
he describes himself as agent, (k) or unless he conceals his 
character of agent, [1) or unless he so conducts as to render 

{g) Olericks v. Ford, 23 How. 49. See 
also, 2 Kert Com. 6.30, 6.31, n.; Allen b. 
Merchants Bank of N. Y., 22 Wend. 224 ; 
and Green v. Cope, 36 E. L. & E. 396. 

[h) Feeter v. Heath, U Wend. 477; 
Johnson v. Ogilby, 3 P. Wms. 279 ; Jones 
V. Downman, 4'Q. B. 235, n. (a). The 
decision of the Queen's Bench in this case 
was afterwards reversed in the Exchequer 
Chamber on a special ground, but the 
doctrine of law does not seem to be im- 
pugned. — But the departure from author- 
ity, to charge the agent, must not be 
kno"\vn to the otiicr contracting party. 
Story on Agency, § 265, recogriized by 
Lord Deinnan, in Jones v. Downman, 4 Q. 
B. 239. 

(t) If an agent, executing a contract in 
writing, use language whose legal effect 
is to charge him personally, it is not com- 
petent for him to exonerate himself by 
showing that he acted for a principal, and 
that the other contracting party knew this 
fact at the time when the aL;"rccinent was 
made and signed. Magce v. Atkinson, 2 
M. & W. 440 ; Jones v. Littledale, 6 A. 
& E. 486 ; Higgins v. Senior, 8 M. & W. 
834 ; Appleton v. Binks, 5 East, 148, 
which was the case of a contract under 
seal ; Chadwick v. Maddon, 12 E. L. & E. 
180; Tanner v. Christian, 29 E. L. & E. 
103; Hancock u. Fairfield, 30 Me. 299. 
See also, Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheat. 56 ; 
Tippets V. Walker, 4 Mass. 595; Forster 

V. Fuller, 6 Mass. 58 ; White v. Skinner, 
13 Johns. 307 ; Stone v. Wood, 7 Cowen, 
453; Andrew v. Allen, 4 Uarring. 452; 
Potts V. Henderson, 2 Cart. (Ind.), 327; 
Fash V. Boss, 2 Hill (S. Car.), 294. 

(/t) Seavcr «. Coburn, 10 Cush. 324; 
Tanner v. Christian, 29 E. L. & E. 103; 
s. c. 4 E. & B. 591 ; Lennard v. Robin- 
son, 32 E. L. & E. 127 ; s. c. 5 E. & B. 
125 ; Taylor r. Shelton, 30 Conn. 122. 

(/) Franklrn v. Lamond, 4 C. B. 637, 
where it was held that the factofseUing 
as auctioneers was not such an indication 
of agency as to ab-olvc the defendants 
from personal rcsponsiliility. — In an ac- 
tion for use and occupation of lands by 
the sufferance and iiennission of the plain- 
tiffs, it appeared that the lands were let 
by auction by the plaintiffs, E. and T., 
who were auctioneers, to the defendant, 
under conditions which stateil the letting 
to be " By E. and T., auctioneers." One 
of the conditions was, " The rent is to be 
paid into the hands of E. or T., auction- 
eers, or to their order, at two payments," 
&c. At the foot of the document was 
written, " approved by me, David Jones." 
Jones was the tenant at the time of the 
sale. Nothing else appeared in the condi 
tions to show on whose behalf the letting 
was. The plaintiffs gave evidence to 
show that Jones, being indebted to them, 
had authorized them to let the lands as 
above, pay the rent due to Jones's land- 

CH. in.] AGENTS. 65 

his principal inaccessible or irresponsible, (m) or unless he acts 
in bad faith. K a sealed instrument is executed by an agent, 
and it contain covenants which expressly purport to be those of 
the principal, and the agent in executing it calls himself an 
agent, he is not liable on those covenants ; (w) but if they are 
not expressly the principal's covenants, the agent is liable on 
them, (o) K a person dealing with an agent, knows his agen- 
cy, his rights and obligations will be the same as if the agent 
disclosed it, {p) unless the agent purposely represents himself as 
a principal and assumes the responsibility of one. And if the 
agent's act be open to two constructions, one of which binds 
him, and the other binds the principal, it is said that the law 
prefers the latter, {q) 

If a party dealing with an agent as agent, and knowing that 
the principal is bound, takes the agent's note, it is held that the 
principal is discharged, (r) 

If one describes himself as agent for some unnamed principal, 
he is of course liable if proved to be the real principal, (s) And 
one acting as ageftt is liable personally, if it be shown that he 
acts without authority, (t) But it seems to be law, that an 

lord, and retain any sui-plus in satisfaction (n) Hopkins v. MehafFy, US. & E. 

of their own debt. Evidence to a contra^ 126. 

ry effect was given by tbe defendant. The (o) Hancock v. Hodgson, 4 Bing. 269 ; 

judge in summing up left it to the jury Stone v. Wood, 7 Cowen, 453 ; Spencer 

whether the plaintiffs had let the lands on v. Field, 10 Wend. 87. 
their own behalf and as creditors of Jones, [p) Chase v. Debolt, 2 Gilman, 371. 
or merely as his agents. The jury found (q) Dyer v. Burnham, 2.') Me. 13. 
a letting by the plaintiffs on their own be- (r) Paige v. Stone, 10 Met. 160 ; Wil- 

half. Held, that the conditions imported kins v. Reed, 6 Greenl. 220 ; Green v. 

a letting by Jones, E. and T. acting as his Tanner, 8 Met. 411. 
agents; and that the document ought to (s) Schmalzv. Aveiy, 3E. L. &E. 391; 

have been so explained to the jury. And Carr v. Jackson, 10 E. L. & E. 526. 
a new trial was granted. Evans u. Evans, (() Dusenberry «. Ellis, 3 Johns. Cas. 

3 A. & E. 132. — The agent is, perhaps, 70 ; Byars v. Doores, 20 Mo. 284 ; Bai/- 

in like manner liable (at the option of tlie ley, B., Thomas v. Hewes, 2 Cr. & M. 

party contracting with him) if he do not 530, n. (a) ; Golden v. Wright, 7 E. & B, 

state the name of the principal, and not- 301. And a subsequent ratification it 

withstanding tlie other contracting party seems will not (always at least) excuse 

have the means of knowing the principal, him. Eossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494 ; 

Thomson v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 78; Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Denio, 471. — If 

Owen V. Gooch, 2 Esp. 567 ; Raymond A, supposing B to be agent for C in the 

V. Proprietors of Crown and Eagle Mills, matter, enter with him into a contract 

2 Met. 319; Winsor v. Griggs, 5 Cush. which is illegal if the contract of C, but 

210 ; Taintor v. Prendergast, 3 Hill is not illegal if B's personal contract, and 

(N. Y.) 72. it turn out that B acted without authority, 

(m) Ashurst, J., Fenn v. Harrison, 3 the illegality of the supposed contract is 

T. R. 761 ; Savage v. Eix, 9 N. H. 263 ; no bar to an action by A against B ; for 

Sydnor v. Hurd, 8 Tex. 98 ; Keener o. the contract actuaVij made contained no 

Harrod 2 Md. 63. illegality. Parke, B., Thomas v. Edwards, 

VOL. I. 



agent is not responsible to third parties for mere neglect or 
omission in the discharge of his duty, for they must look to the 
principal, (u) 

Whether an agent makes himself liable who transcends his 
authority, or acts without authority, but believes in good faith 
that he has such authority, may not be absolutely settled. It 
must depend upon the question whether he is regarded as al- 
ways impliedly warranting his possession of authority. Where 
an agent fraudulently misrepresents his authority, with the pur- 
pose of deception, there it is equally clear that he is liable 
legally as it is that he is liable morally. But where he verily 
believes himself to possess the authority under which he acts, 
but is mistaken on this point, then a deciding test of his lia- 
bility may perhaps be found in his means of knowledge. If he 
could have known the truth, and did not through his own fault, 
then he is ignorant by his own wrong. And if an injury is 
to result from this ignorance, either to a third party or to him, 
and the third party is wholly innocent, it ought to faU on him 
who so represented himself as agent, because "he was not therein 
wholly innocent. He was not guilty of intentional deception, 
but he was guilty of deception in fact, and if this was caused 

2 M. & W. 217. — It is perhaps doubtful plaintiff as principal. In Eayner u. Grote, 
whether or not a party contracting, with- 1.'5 M. & W. 359, the plaintiff made a 
out autliority, as agent for anotlicr, and wiitteu contract for the sale of goods, in 
giving the name of the principal, can which he described himself as the agent 
afterwards himself enforce the contract of J. & T. ; the buyers accepted part of 
as principal. Strictly, it would seem he the goods, and the plaintiff (who in real- 
cannot. Even admitting that the agent ity was himself principal in the transac- 
thus acting without autliority, might be tion, and not agent for J. & T.) brought 
held liable upon the contract as principal, an action in his own name against the 
because ho acted in his own wrong, yet it buyers for refusing to accept the remain- 
does not follow that he himself should be der. At nisi prius the jury were instruc^ 
allowed to take advantage of the wrong, ed that if the defendants received the first 
And this appears to have been the view of portion of goods, with knowledge that the 
Lord E/lnilioroiKih, C. J., ani Ahbott, J., plaintiff was the real seller, and all parties 
in Bickei-ton v. Burrell, 5 M. & Sul. 38.3 ; then treated the contract as oue made 
thougli tlie decision in that case was put with the plaintiff as principal in the trans- 
on the narrower, and somewhat unsatis- action, the plaintiff was entitled to recov- 
factory ground, that tlie phiintiff had not er, and upon this instruction a verdict 
notified tlie defendant, previous to bringing having been rendered for the plaintiff, the 
the action, of Iiis claim to tlio character couvt held that the case was properly left 
of principal. — If the other party, after to the jury, and refused to distm'b the ver- 
knowledge of the true state of the matter, diet. 

elect to act under the contract, it is clear (») Colvin v. Holbrook, 2 Comst. 126; 

that he has waived his right to object Denny v. Manhattan Co. 2 Deuio, 118. 
that it was not made originally witli the 

CH. m.] AGENTS. 67 

by his want of care or want of diligence, or by his negligence 
in any way, he must bear the burden of it. And this is what 
we should infer from some of the cases in which it is said that 
an agent who states that which he does not know to be true, 
places himself under the same Uabihty as one who states what 
he knows to be not true. "We think this principle just, only 
if it be meant that he is thus liable, who states what he does 
not know to be true, and by proper diligence and care might 
have known to be not true. But the question still remains, 
whether the agent is liable where he himself has been deceived 
wholly without his fault, — as by a forged letter which he could 
not detect. The case must be very rare in fact, where one 
acting as an agent is whoUy without the means of ascertaining 
his own agency. But we incline to the opinion, as resting on 
the better reason, that he would stiU be held. K he and the 
third party with whom he deals, are both perfectly innocent, 
still the loss resulting from his want of authority must faU 
somewhere ; and it seems just that it should rest on him who 
has assumed, innocently but yet falsely, that he possessed this 
authority, (v) 

(y) In Polhill v. Walter, 3 B. & Ad. within her knowledge relating to it, and 

114, the right of action is held to be the revocation itself was by the act of 

grounded on an affirmation of authority God." On this ground she was held not 

which the af&rmer knew to be false ; and liable. But he says previously " that 

if he acted under an authority which was . where a party making the contract as 

forged, but which he believed genuine, ho agent, bond fide believes that such au- 

would not be responsible. Story (Agen- thority is vested in him, but has in fact 

cy, § 263, n. 2), says, "the distinction of no such authority, he is still personally 

Lord Tenterden (in the above case) is en- liable. In these cases, it is true, the 

tirely overthrown by Smout v. Ilbery, 10 agent is not actuated by any fraudulent 

M. & W. 7." We do not so understand motives, nor has he made any statement 

this case. There the family of Mr. Ilbery which he knows to be untrue. But still 

was supplied with provisions by Smout. his liability depends on the same princi- 

Ilbery was lost in a voyage to India, in pies as before It is a wrong differing 

Oct. 1839 ; the provisions were supplied only in degree, but not in its essence, from 

both before and after his death ; and the the fonner case, to state as true what the 

action was brought against the widow, individual making such statement does 

A principal question was, whether she not know to be true, even though he does 

was liable for the provisions supplied not know it to be false, but believes with- 

after the death of Ilbery, and before it out sufficient grounds, that the statement 

was known. Alderson, B., in giving the will ultimately turn out to be correct." 

opinion of the court, says, " There is no It cannot be doubted, however, that the 

ground for saying, that in representing court intend to confine the liability of the 

her authority as continuing, she did any supposed agent to the case wliere he not 

^vrong whatever. There was no maJa only had no authority, but might have 

fides on her part — no want of due dili- known that he had none. This may not 

gence in acquiring knowledge of the re- only be inferred from the decision, but the 

location — no omission to state any fact court say afterwards, " If, then, the true 



[book I. 

The question then occurs whether in such a case the agent 
can be held on the contract, and it has been so decided, [w) 

principle derivable from tlie cases is, that 
tlicre must be some wrong or omission of 
right on the jiart of the agent, in order to 
make him pei'sonally liable on a contract 
made in the name of liis principal, it will 
follow tliat the agent is not responsible in 
such a case as the present. And to this 
conclusion we have come." We doubt, 
however, the \av/ of this case, and prefer 
the view stated in the text. See Taylor 
V. Ashton, U M. & W. 401 ; Collins v. 
Evans, .5 A. & E., N. s., 820 ; Lewis v. 
Nicholson, 12 E. L. & E. 430, s. c. 18 A. 
& E., N. s., 503 ; Carr v. Jackson, 10 E. 
L. & E. 526, 7 Exch. 382. 

(w) Tliis qucition has been very re- 
cently discussed in the Queen's Bench 
in the case of Jenkins v. Hutchinson, 13 
Jar. 763, s. c. 13 Q. B. 744. That was 
an action of assumpsit on a charter-party, 
which purported to be made between the 
plaintiff on tlie one part, and one T. A. 
Barnes of the other part, and was signed 
"Ralph Hutchinson, for T. A. Barnes." 
It appeared that Hutchinson had no au- 
thority to enter into the charter-party for 
Barnes, and it was therefore contended 
that he was personally liable as principal 
in this action, but the court held other- 
wise. Lord Denman said : " It is not 
pretended tliat the defendant had any 
interest as principal ; he signed as agent, 
intending to bind a jirineipal, and in no 
other character. That he may be liable 
to the plaintiff in another form of action, 
for any damage sustained by his repre- 
senting Iiimself to be agent, when he was 
not, is very possible ; but the question is 
here, whether he can be sued on the 
charter-party itself, as ? party to it. Xo 
reported case has decided that a party so 
circumstanced cnn bo sued on the instru- 
ment itself. Mr. Justice *SVory, in his 
book on the Law of Agency, states, that 
the decisions in tiie American courts are 
conflicting on this point, and that ' in 
England it is held, that the suit must 
be by a special action on the case ; ' citing 
Polliill V. Walter, 3 B. & Ad. 114. That 
case does not, perhaps, establish the broad 
proposition ; for the contract was a bill 
of exchange — an instrument differing in 
many respects from ordinary contracts. 
In the absence of any direct authority, we 
think that a party who executes an instru- 
ment in the name of another, whose name 
he puts to the instrument, and adds his 

own name only as agent for that other, 
cannot be treated as a party to tliat in- 
strument, and be sued upon it, unless it 
lie shown that he was the real principal." 
Sec also, Lewis v. Nicholson, 12 E. L, & 
E. 430. — The law is so Iield in Massa- 
chusetts. Long V. Colburn, 11 Mass. 97, 
Ballou V. Talbot, 16 Mass. 461 ; Jefts ;;. 
York, 4 Cush, 371. And in Abbey t-. 
Chase, 6 Cush. 56, the view taken in the 
text is confirmed. The court say : " It 
does not necessarily follow that a contract 
made by an authorized agent, which does 
not bind the principal, becomes the agent's 
contract, and makes him answerable if it 
is not performed. This depends upon the 
legal effect of the terms of the contract. 
If the agent employs such terms as legal- 
ly import an undertaking l)y the principal 
onl}', the contract is the principal's, and 
he alone is bound by it. But if the terms 
of the contract legally import a personal 
undertaking of the agent, and not of the 
principal, then it is the contract of the 
agent, and he alone is answerable for a 
breach of it. So when one who has no 
authority to act as another's agent, as- 
sumes so to act, and makes either a deed 
or a simple contract in the name of the 
other, he is not personally liable on the 
covenants in the deed, or on the promise 
in the simple contract, unless it contain 
apt words to bind him personally. The 
only remedy against him in this common- 
wealth, is an action on the case for falsely 
assuming authority to act as agent." In 
Maine, Harper «." Little, 2 Greenl. 14; 
Stetson V. Patton, id. 358. In Connec- 
ticut, 0-dcn 1 . Raymond, 22 Conn. 385. 
In iTuliana, McHenry v. Duffield, 7 
Elackf. 41. And in Pennsylvania, Hop- 
kins u. Mehaffy, 11 S. &R."l26. In this 
case, Gibson, J., says ; " No decision can 
be foimd in support of the position, that 
what appears on the face of the deed to be 
the pro|)er covenant of the principal, but 
entered into through the agency of an 
attorney, shall be taken to be the proper 
covenant of the attorney, whenever he had 
no attthority to execute the deed. How 
could he be declared against 1 If in the 
usual and proper manner of pleading it 
were alleged that the agent had covenanted, 
it would appear by the production of the 
instrument that he had not, but that his 
principal had covenanted through his 
means ; which, on non est factum being 

en. III.] AaBNTS. 69 

But we think it the better opinion that the contract is whoUy 
void. It is not the contract of the principal, because he gave 
no authority to the supposed agent. It is not the contract of 
the agent, for he professed to act for the principal. So, if one 
forges a signature to a note, and obtains money on that note, 
he cannot be held on it as on his promise to pay. But in all 
such cases the supposed agent may be reached in assumpsit if 
money be paid to him or work and labor done for him under 
such supposed contract, or in trespass for special damages for 
so undertaking to act for another without authority, or in some 
other appropriate action ; but not on the contract itself. 

An agent who exceeds his authority renders himself liable to 

• the whole extent of the contract, although a part of it was within 

his authority, (x) It may, however, be said, that where an 

agent exceeds his authority, what he does within it is valid, if 

that part be distinctly severable from the remainder. 



It is a general principle, that an authority is always revocable • 
the principal may at any time put an end to the relation be- 
tween himself and his agent by withdrawing the authority, 
unless the authority is coupled with an interest, or given for a 

pleaded, would be fatal." But in New wliich he makes, rejecting what he was not 

York the courts have held the agent per- authorized to put to it, contains apt words 

Eonally liable on the contract in such cases, to charge himself, he is pei-sonally liable. 

Dusenbury v. Ellis, 3 Jolms. Cas. 70; Woodes u. Dennett, 9 N. H. 55; Savage 

White V. Skinner, 13 Johns. 307 ; Randall v. Rix, id. 263 ; Moor v. Wilson, 6 Fos- 

V. Van Vetchen, 19 id. 60; Meech v. ter (N. H.), 332. 

Smith, 7 Wend. 315; Palmer a. Stephens, (a;) Feeter u. Heath, 11 Wend. 477.— 

1 Denio, 471. But see Walker v. Bank But in Johnson v. Blasdale, 1 Sm. & M. 

of the State of New York, 13 Barb. 639, 1, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi 

contra. The agent is held liable on tlie held that if an agent in fllUng up a blank 

contract in New Jersey ; Bay v. Cook, 2 note exceed his authority, and the third 

N. J. 343. In New Hampshire the court party receive the note with knowledge 

seem to have taken a middle course. It that the authority has been transcended, 

is there held that if a person, having no the note will not be void in toto, but only 

authority to act as agent, undertakes so to for the excess beyond the sum which -kos 

act in making a contract, and the contract authorized. 



[book I, 

valuable consideration, {y) But where third parties have dealt 
with an agent clothed with general powers, whose acts have 
therefore bound his principal, and the principal revokes the 
authority he gave his agent, such principal will continue to be 

(y) It is to be noticed, that many cases 
which in England might he understood as 
examples of an authority irrevocable at the 
pleasure of the principal, because coupled 
with an interest, would not in this coun- 
try be classed under that head, owing to 
the general adoption here of the defini- 
tion of a " power coupled with an inter- 
est," given in Hunt v. Eousmanier, 8 
Wheat. 201, (see post, note (m) ). All 
such cases, it seems, can be considered 
instances where the authority cannot be 
revoked because of the valuable consider- 
ation moving from the agent ; as where 
the agent had begun to act under the 
authority, and would be damnified by 
its recall, or where the authority is part 
of a security. Walsh ;;. Whitcomb, 2 
Esp. 565 ; Gaussen v. Morton, 10 B. & 
C. 731 ; Hodgson v. Anderson, 3 B. & 
C. 842 ; Broomley v. Holland, 7 Ves. 28 ; 
Marryat v. Broderick, 2 M. & W. 371 ; 
Kltham v. liingsman, 1 B. & Aid. 684 ; 
Yates V. Hoppe, 9 C. B. 541 ; Ware, J., 
United States v. Jarvis, District Court of 
Maine, 1846, 4 N. T. Leg. Obs. 301. 
And see Brown v. McGran, 14 Pet. 479, 
495 ; Story on Agency, 4§ 466, 467, 
468, where the opinions of the civilians 
are cited ; but compare 2 Kent, Com. 644. 
Fabens v: the Mercantile Bank, 23 Pick. 
330, seems to be the case of a power ir- 
revocable by the principal, both because 
given for consideration and because coup- 
led with an interest in the sense of Chief 
Justice Marshall. AVhetlier after advan- 
ces made by a factor, his authority to 
sell the goods of the principal to the ex- 
tent of those advances, is revocable at 
the pleasure of the principal, is a ques- 
tion upon which the authorities are not 
agreed. In Brown v. MiGran, 14 Pet. 
479, it was liekl that the authority to sell 
is not revocable in such a case. The de- 
cisions in the State courts, so fiir as 
tlicy go, appear to be in substantial 
agreement with Brown v. McGran. If 
the original authority, on consideration 
of which the advances were made, was 
an authority to sell at a Umiled price, it 
seems plain that the fact of the advances 
does not alter that authority. It con- 
tinues an authority to sell on certain 
terms, and as such, on the doctrine of 

the Supreme Court, may be held iiTevo- 
cable to the extent of the consideration 
given for it, that is, to tlie amount of tlie 
advances. Some of the State courts 
have gone a step further in this direction, 
and held that an authority to sell at a 
limited price may be converted into a 
general authority to sell, by the fact of 
advances in conjunction with the fact of 
the neglect of the consignor, after reason- 
able notice, to repay tlie ad-\'ances. Parker 
V. Brancker, 22 Pick. 40 ; Erothingham v. 
Evertoii, 12 N. H. 239. See also Blot v' 
Boiceau, 3 Comst. 78. This subject has 
recently come before the Court of Com- 
mon Bench in England in Smart v. 
Sandars, 5 C. B. 895, where it was de- 
cided that a factor's authority to sell is 
revocable at the will of the consignor, not- 
withstanding advances to the full value, 
and a request of repayment uncomplied 
with. Brown v. McGran had been cited 
in the argument ; Wilde, C. J., dehvering 
the judgment of the court said (p. 918): 
" In the present case tlie goods are con- 
signed to a factor for sale. That confers 
an implied authority to sell. Afterwards 
the factor makes advances. Tliis is not 
an authority coupled with an interest but 
an independent authority, and an interest 
subsequently arising. The making of such 
an advance may be a good consideration 
for an agreement that the authority to 
sell shall be no longer revocable ; but such 
an effect will not, we think, arise inde- 
pendently of agreement. There is no au- 
thority or principle in our law, that we 
are aware of, which leads us to think it 
will. If such be the law, where is it to 
be found 1 It was said in argument, that 
it was the common practice of factors to 
sell, in order to repay advances. If it 
be true that there is a well-understood 
practice with factors to sell, that practice 
might furnish a ground for inferring that 
the advances were made upon the footing 
of an agreement tliat the factor should 
have an irrevocable authority to sell, in 
case the principal made default. Such 
an inference might be a very reasonable 
and proper one ; but it would be an in- 
ference of fact, and not a conclusion of 
law." See also, Raleigh u. Atkinson, 6 
M. & W. 670. 

OH. III.] 



bound by the further acts of his agent, unless the third parties 
have knowledge of the revocation, or unless he does what he 
can to make the revocation as notorious and generally known 
to the "world as was the fact of the agency, (z) This is usually 
done by advertising, and usage wiU have great eflect in deter- 
mining whether such principal did aU that was incumbent on 
him to make his revocation notorious. And third parties who 
never dealt with such agent before such revocation, if they, as a 
part of the community were justified in believing such agency 
to have existed, and had no knowledge and no sufficient means 
of knowledge of the revocation, may hold the principal liable 
for the acts of the agent after revocation ; (a) as in the case of 
a partnership, where the dissolution or change of parties was 
not properly made known, (b) 

The death of the principal operates, per se, as a revocation 
of the agency, (c) But not if the agency is coupled with an 

(a) Hazard v. Treadwell, Stra. 506; 

V. Harrison, 12 Mod. 346 ; Buller, 

J., Saltet). Field, 5 T. R. 215; Spencer 
V. Wilson, 4 Munf. 130 ; Morgan v. Stell, 
5 Binn. 305. — Where an agency consti- 
tuted by writing is revoked, but the writ- 
ten authority is left in the hands of the 
agent, and he subsequently exhibits it to 
a third person who deals with him as 
agent on the faith of it without any notice 
of the revocation, the act of the agent, 
within the scope of the authority, will 
bind the principal. Beard v. Kirk, 1 1 N. 
H. 397. This necessity for actual notice 
of revocation, or a general notoriety 
equivalent to notice, has been held to 
exist in fall force in the case of an au- 
thority implied from cohabitation, joined 
with the previous sanction of acts of 
agency performed by the person held forth 
as wife. That the tradesman furnishing 
the goods in such a case has knowledge 
that the woman is only a mistress, does 
not affect his right to notice of separation. 
Ryan u. Sams, 12 Q. B. 460, where 
Munro v. De Chemant, 4 Camp. 215, 
was commented on. 

(u) See last note. 

(/)) Graham v. Hope, 1 Peake, 154; 
Parkin v. Carruthers, 3 Esp. 248 ; Ward- 
well V. Haight, 2 Barb. 549. 

(c) Co. Litt. § 66 ; Hunt v. Eousmanier, 
8 Wheat. 201 ; Watson v. King, 4 Camp. 
272 ■ Lepard v. Vernon, 2 Ves. & B. 51 ; 

Smout V. Xlbery, 10 M. & W. 1 ; Buxton 
V, Jones, 1 Man. & G. 84 ; Campanari v. 
Woodbum, 28 E. L. & E. 321 ; Rigs 
V. Cage, 2 Humph. (Tenn.), 350. In 
Cassiday v. McKenzio, 4 W. c& S. 282, 
it was held, in opposition to the cuiTcnt 
of authority, that a payment made by an 
agent, after the death of his principal, he 
being ignorant thereof, was valid as an 
act of agency. Lunacy of the principal 
revokes, but the better opinion {according 
to Ch. Kent, 2 Com. 645) is, that the 
fact of the existence of lunacy must have 
been previously established by inquisition 
before it could control the operation of 
the power ; and see Bell's Comment, on 
the Laws of Scotland, § 413. — In Davis 
V. Lane, 10 N. H. 156, it was held, that the 
authority of an agent, where the agency is 
revocable, ceases, or is suspended, by the 
insanity of the principal, or his incapacity 
to exercise any volition upon the subject- 
matter of the agency, in consequence of 
aa entire loss of mental power ; but that 
if the principal has enabled the agent to 
hold himself out as having authority, by a 
written letter of attorney, or by a previous 
employment, and the incapacity of the 
principal is not known to those who deal 
with the agent within the scope of the 
authority he appears to possess, the prin- 
cipal and those who claim under him, 
may be precluded from setting up the 
insanity as a revocation. The comt in 



[book I. 

interest vested in the agent, {d) Then it sui-vives, and the 
agent may do all that is necessary to realize his interest and 
make it beneficial to himself. Such an agency is not revocable 
at the pleasure of the principal in his lifetime, (e) and ' if the 
agent dies it passes over to his representatives. (/) To deter- 
mine whether the agency be thus irrevocable, it is an important 
if not a decisive question, whether the act authorized could be 
performed by the agent in his own name, or only by him as an 
agent, and in the name of the principal. In the first case, if 
an interest were coupled with the agency, the authority would 
survive the death of the principal, and the agent might perform 

this case also held, that the principle, that 
insanity operates as a revocation, cannot 
apply where the power is coupled with an 
interest, so that it can be exercised in the 
name of tlie agent. Whether it is appli- 
cable to the case of a power which is part 
of a security, or executed for a valuable 
consideration, was left undecided. See 
Jones V. Noy, 2 Myl. & K. 125 ; AVaters v. 
Taylor, 2 Ves & B. 301 ; Huddlestone's 
case, 2 Ves. Sen. 34, 1 Swanst. 514, n.; 
S:iyer v, Bennett, 1 Cox's Cas. 107. — 
, Bankruptcy of the principal revokes the 
authority. Parker v. Smith, 16 East, 
382; Minett v. Forrester, 4 Taunt. 541. 
Defendant being in the employment of J. 
in his trade, sold, bona fide, some goods 
belonging to J., after J. had committed 
an act of banknijitry, of which defendant 
was ignorant. Tile sale was more than 
two months before the commission issued. 
Defendant acted under a general author- 
ity. The assignee brought trover. Held, 
on a plea of not guilty, that defendant, 
having sold under a general authority 
onlv, had been guilty of a conversion. 
Pearson v. Gniham, 6 A. & E. 899.— 
J^liuriaqe of feme sole principal revokes. 
White w. Gilford, 1 Ptnl AU: Aiithoritie 
E pi . 4 ; Charnley v. Winstanley, 5 East, 

(d) See ante, p. 70, n. {ij). Hunt v. 
Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 201 ; Bergen v. 
Bennett, 1 Caines' Cas. 1 ; Smyth v. Craig, 
3 W. & S. 14 ; Cassidav v. IWcKenzie, 4 
W, & S. 282 ; Knajii) v. Alvord, 10 Paige, 
205. The important question is what 
euiistitutcs an authoritij coupled with an 
interest ; and here there is some diversity 
in judicial definition. In Hunt v. Rous- 
manier, 8 Wheat. 201, it was held (ilur- 
r'uiU, C. J., riving the opinion of the 

court), that the interest which can protect 
a power, after the death of the person who 
creates it, must be an interest in the thin^ 
itself on which the power is to be exer- 
cised, and not an interest in tlrat which is 
produced by the exercise of the power. — 
In Smart v. Sandars, 5 C. B. 895, 917, 
Wilde, C. J., said that, " Where an agree- 
ment is entered into on a sufficient con- 
sideration, whereby an authority is given 
for the purpose of securing some benefit 
to the donee of tlie authority, such an au- 
thority is in'evocable. This is what is 
usually meant by an authority coupled 
with an interest:" — that is, irrevocable 
except by the death of the principal ; for 
the dictum, as the whole case shows, is to 
be taken in connection with the doctrine, 
understood still to prevail in England, on 
the authority of Lord Ellenborough, in 
Watson V. King, 4 Camp. 272, that death 
revokes even a power coupled mth an in- 
terest. See ante, note {y). A warrant 
of attorney to confess judgment is not 
revocable ; and though determinable by 
death, yet, at common law, as a judgment 
entered up during any term, or the sub- 
sequent vacation, related to the first day 
of such terra, a AvaiTant of attorney might 
be made available after the death of the 
principal, by entering up judgment within 
the term and vacation in which the death 
occurred. Lord Holl, Oades «. Woodward, 
1 Salk. 87 ; Fuller r. Jocelyn, 2 Stra. 882; 
Hcapy V. Parris, 6 T. K. 368. 

(f)"GausseniJ. Morton, 10 B. & C. 731 
Walsh V. Wliitcomb, 2 Esp. 565 ; Allen » 
Davis, 8 Eng. (Ark.), 29. See also, Mar- 
field V. Goodhue, 3 Comst. 62 ; Houghta- 
ling V. Marvin, 7 Barb. 412; Wilson a. 
Edmonds, 4 Foster (N. H.), 517. 

( /") 2 Kent, Com. 643. 

CH. in.] 



the act in the same manner after the death as before. In the 
latter case, as he could no longer use the name of the principal, 
for the obvious reason that one who is dead can no longer act, 
it would seem that his right must be limited to that of requiring 
the representatives of the deceased to perform the act necessary 
for his protection. 




A principal is liable for the fraud or misconduct of his agent, 
so far, that, on the one hand, he cannot take any benefit from 
any misrepresentation fraudulently made by his agent, although 
the principal was ignorant and innocent of the fraud ; [g) and 
on the other hand, if the party dealing with the agent suffer 
from such fraud, the principal is bound to make him compen- 
sation for the injury so sustained ; (A) and this although the 

(g) Attorney-General v. Ansted, 12 M. 
& W. 520 ; Fitzherbert v. Mather, 1 T. R. 
12; Seaman u. Fonereau, 2 Stra. 1183; 
Fitzsimmons v. Joslin, 21 Vt. 129. " I 
have no doubt that if an agent of a party, 
say of Mr. Atwood in this case, without 
his knowledge, made a wilfully false repre- 
sentation to the British Iron Company, 
upon which representation they acted, 
' adhibentes Jidem,' and on that confidence 
had formed a contract; — I have no hesi- 
tation whatever in saying, that against 
that contract, equity would relieve just as 
much as if there was the scienter of the 
principal proved ; because it is not a ques- 
tion of criminal responsibility which is 
here raised by the facts. The agent could 
not commit the principal to any criminal 
purpoM, if the principal did not Icnow it, 
anid him not either given him an authority 
or adopted his act when he did know it. 
But as to the civil eflFect of vitiating the 
contract made upon that false representa- 
tion, I have no doubt whatever that it would 
vacate it just as much, with the ignorance 
of the principal, as if he were charged 
with knowing it, and as if the agent had 
been an agent for this purpose." Lord 

Brougham in Attwood v. Small, 6 CI. & 
F. 448. See also, Taylor v. Green, 8 C. 
& P. 316; Olmsted v. Hotailing, 1 Hill 
(N. Y.), 317 ; Veazie v. Williams, 8 How. 
134, 3 Story, 611. 

(A) Bolt, C. J; in Hem v. Nichols, 1 
Salk. 289, and ElJenborough, C. J., in 
Crockford v. Winter, 1 Camp. 124, lay 
down the broad doctrine that a principal 
is answerable civiliter, though not crimi- 
naliter, for the fraud of his agent. Jeffrey 
V. Bigelow, 13 Wend. 518, illustrates the 
general doctrine. There the defendants 
had been in partnership with one Hunt, 
for speculation in sheep, they contributing 
funds, and he time and services. Hunt 
purchased some sheep diseased with the 
scab, knowing the fact, and mixed them 
with a larger number belonging to the 
partnership. Subsequently Hunt assigned 
his interest to defendants, who employed 
S. to sell the sheep. The flock was pur- 
chased from S. bythe plaintiff, and mixed 
with the sheep he before owned. The 
scab broke out among them and destroyed 
many sheep, of his old stock as well as of 
those purchased from S. ; and consider 
able expense was incvm'ed in the attempt 



[book 1. 

principal be innocent, (i) provided the agent acted in the 
matter as his agent, and distinctly within the line of the busi- 
ness intrusted to him. (k) And though there be no actual fraud 
on the part of the agent, yet if he makes a false representation 
as to matter peculiarly within his own knowledge or that 
of his principal, and thereby gets a better bargain for his 
principal, such principal, although innocent, cannot take the 
benefit of the transaction, (l) But the third party may re- 
scind the contract, and recover back any money he may have 
paid the principal, by reason of his confidence in such misrep- 



A principal is affected by notice to his agent, respecting any 
matter distinctly within the scope of his agency, when the no- 
tice is given before the transaction begins, or before it is so far 

to arrest the disease. S. was aware of 
the infected condition of the flocli, but 
no actual knowledge was proved upon 
the defendants. Held, that the plaintiff 
was entitled to maintain liis action, and 
could recover damages for the loss both 
of the sheep purchased, and of the other 
sheep receiving the infection, and all other 
damages necessarily and naturally flow- 
ing from tlie act of the defendants agent. 
Semble, the liability of the defendants 
would have been the same if S. had been 
ignorant of the state of the flock; tlie 
knowledge of Hunt when he bought the 
diseased sheep being constructively the 
knowledge of his partners, and his assign- 
ment of his interests to the defendants, 
before the sale to the plaintiff, making no 
difference, as to their responsibility. See 
also, Johnston v. South- Western Kailroad 
Bank, 3 Strob. Eq. 263 ; Mitchell v. Mims, 
8 Tex. 6. 

(i) Irving v. Motley, 7 Bing. 543; 
Doe V. Martin, 4 T. R. 39, 66 ; Edwards 
t. Eootner, I Camp, 530. Where an 
attorney's clerk had simulated the court 
seal upon a writ, by taking an impression 
from the seal upon another writ, the writ 

and all proceedings thereon were set aside, 
and the attorney, although personally 
blameless was compelled to pay the costs. 
Dunklcy w. Earns, 20 E. L. & E. 285 ; 
Hunter v. The Hudson Eiver Iron and 
Machine Co. 20 Barb. 493. 

[k) Peto V. Hague, 5 Esp. 135; Huck- 
man v. Fcrnie 3 JI. & W. 505. — In 
Woodin V. Burford, 2 Cr. & M. 392, 
^"yl^y^ B., said : " What is said by a ser- 
vant is not evidence against the master, 
unless he has some authority (jii-en him to 
make the representation." It is not meant, 
as the case shows, tliat there must be an 
express authority to make that particular 
representation ; but the authority may 
be implied as incident to a general au- 

{I) Willes V. Glover,4 B. & P. 14 ; Ash- 
hurst, J., Fitzherbcrt c. Mather, 1 T. R. 
16 ; Franklin v. EzoU, 1 Sneed, 497 ; Na- 
tional Exchange Co. v. Drew, 32 E. L. 
& E. 1 ; Carpenter v. Amer. Ins. Co. 1 
Story, 57. And it seems tlie purchaser, 
without rescinding the contract, may 
maintain case for deceit against the prin- 
cipal. Fuller V. Wilson, 3 Q. B. 58. 

CH. III.] 



completed as to render the notice nugatory, (m) The notice to 
the agent may be implied as weU as express. Knowledge ob- 
tained by the agent in the course of that very transaction is 
notice; and it has been said, that Imowledge obtained in 
another transaction, but so short a time previous that the agent 
must be presumed to recollect it, is also notice affecting the 
principal ; (m) but this is questionable, (o) This matter has 
been most discussed in cases where, in consequence of the 
employment of solicitors or counsel in the purchase of real es- 
tate, the question has arisen how far the clients are affected 
with notice of incumbrances, or defects of title, which, by a 
more or less strong presumption, must be taken to have come 
to the knowledge of their agents. Two propositions seem to 
be well settled : the first, that the notice to the solicitor, to bind 
the client, must be notice in the same transaction in which the 
client employs him, or at least, during the time of the solicitor's 
employment in that transaction ; (p) the other, that where a 

(m) Bank of the United States v. Da- 
vis, 2 Hill ( N. Y. ), 451. Notice to one 
of several joint pnrchascvs, whatever be 
the nature of the estate they take, is not 
in general notice to the rest, unless he 
who receives the notice be their agent ; and 
where notice was given to a husband, at 
the time of taking a conveyance of lands 
to himself and wife, of a prior unregistered 
mortgage, it was held not to operate as 
notice to the wife, so as to give the mort- 
gage a preference in respect to her title ; 
especially as she had paid the considera- 
tion for the conveyance out of her sepiir- 
ate estate. Snyder v. Sponable, 1 Hill 
(N. Y.), 567, s. c. affirmed in error, 7 Hill, 
427. It seems a principal is chargeable 
with notice of what is known to a sub- 
agent, how many degrees soever removed, 
such sub-agent, being appointed by his 
authority. See Boyd v. Vanderkemp, 1 
Barb. Ch. 287. As to the time when 
notice may be given, see TouiTille v. 
Naish, 3 P. Wras. 307; Story v. Lord 
Windsor, 2 Atk. 630 ; More v. Mayhew, 
1 Chanc. Cas. 34 ; Wigg v. Wigg, 1 Atk. 

(n) Lord Langdale, M. R., Hargreaves 
V. Rothwell, r Keen, 159. And see 
Mountford v. Scott, 3 Madd. 34. 

(o) New York Central Ins. Co. v. The 
National Protective Ins. Co., 20 Barb. 

{p) Wigram, V. C, Fuller i'. Bennett, 
2 Hare, 402, 403. And Lord Hardwicke, 
in declaring the same doctrine, in Worsley 
V. Scarborough, 3 Atk. 392, said it 
would be very mischievous if it were other- 
wise, for the man of most practice and 
greatest eminence would then be the 
most dangerous to employ. And see 
Warrick v. Wan-ick, 3 Atk. 294. In 
Hood V. Fahnestoek, 8 Watts, 489, it was 
held that if one in the course of his busi- 
ness as agent, attorney, or counsel for an- 
other, obtain knowledge from which a 
trust would arise, and afterwards becomes 
the agent attorney, or counsel of a subse- 
quent purchaser in an independent and 
unconnected transaction, his previous 
knowledge is not notice to such other 
person for whom he acts. "The reason 
is [per Sergeant, J., delivering the opinion 
of the court], that no man can be sup- 
posed always to cai-ry in his mind the 
recollection of former occurrences ; and 
moreover, in the case of the attorney or 
cotmsel, it might be contrary to his duty 
to reveal the confidential communications 
of his client. To visit the principal with 
constructive notice, it is necessary that 
the knowledge of the agent or attorney 
should be gained, in the course of the 
same transaction in which he is employed 
by his client." S. P. Bracken v. Miller. 
4. W. & S. 102. 


purchaser employs the same solicitor as the vendor, he is 
affected with notice of whatever that solicitor had notice of, in 
his capacity of solicitor for either vendor or purchaser, in the 
transaction in which he is so employed, (q) The first, it is evi- 
dent, is so far qualified by the second, that where the circum- 
stance of the solicitor's being employed for two parties is in the 
case, a purchaser, in the language of Sir. J. Wigram, may be 
affected with notice of what the solicitor knew as solicitor for 
the vendor, although as solicitor for the vendor he may 
have acquired his knowledge before he was retained by the 
purchaser — whatever the solicitor, during the time of his re- 
tainer, knows as solicitor for either party, may possibly in 
some cases affect both, without reference to the time when his 
knowledge was first acauh-ed. Any other qualification of the 
principle limiting the client's liability to notice acquked in the 
same transaction, the distinguished judge referred to does not 
acknowledge, (r) If, however, one assume to act as agent of 
another, and cause an act to be done for him of which the latter 
afterwards takes the benefit, he must take it charged with 
notice of such matters as appear to have been at the time 
within the knowledge and recollection of the agent, (s) 

Notice to a servant of the principal, or one employed by the 
principal, affects -the principal, only when given about the very 
thing that servant is employed to do. Thus, notice to a general 
clerk in a mercantile house, not to furnish goods, does not bind 
the house, (t) 

On the other hand, knowledge possessed by a principal af- 
fects a transaction, although the transaction took place through 
an agent to whom the knowledge was not communicated. It 
certainly has this effect if the knowledge of the principal could 
have been and should have been communicated to the agent. 
But it may not be certain that the knowledge of the principal 
is the knowledge of the agent the moment the principal ac- 
quires it, without any reference to the duty or the possibility of 
the principal's imparting that knowledge to the agent, in season 

(7) Wigram V. C, Fuller v- Bennett, where the cases are reviewed and mnch 
2 Hare, 402. discussed. 

(r) See Fuller v. Bennett, 2 Hare, 402, (s) Hovey v. Blanehard, 13 N. H. 145. 

(«) Graut V. Cole, 8 Ala. 519. 

CH, m.] AGENTS. 77 

for him to be influenced by it. (m) In some cases the rights 
of the principal are certainly to be determined by his own 
knowledge only ; as, if a principal knew of defences to a pro- 
missory note available only against a purchaser with knowl- 
edge, and this principal bought the note by an agent, who had 
no knowledge of these defences, they might stUl be enforced 
against the principal. 

Much question has arisen as to the effect on a corporation, 
of notice to one who is a member or officer of it. By some it 
is held that the notice must be made formally to the corpora- 
tion, (v) and it has been contended on the other hand, that the 
notice is enough if given to any director, or any member of a 
board which manages the affau-s of the corporation, (w) We 
consider these views extreme and inaccurate ; and should state 
as the rule of law that a notice to a corporation binds it, only 
when made to an officer, whether president, director, trustee, 
committee-man, or otherwise, whose situation and relation to 
the corporation imply that he has authority to act for the cor- 
poration in the particular matter in regard to which the notic* 
is given, (x) 



A master of a ship has, by the poHcy of the law-merchant, 
some authority not usually implied in other cases of general 

(m) In Willis !'. Bank of England, 4 other inconveniences of a more serious 
A. & E. 21, 39, the doctiine of notice was nature would obviously grow out of a dif- 
thus stated by Lord Z)e«man : "The gen- ferent decision." It may be considered 
eral rule of law is that notice to the prin- worth inquiry whether the clause we huve 
cipal is notice to all his agents. Mayhew put in italics is not an essential part of the 
V. Eames ; at any rate if there be reasona- rule. Certainly, Mayhew !;. Eames, 3 B. 
ble time, a,s there vfas here, for the principal & C. 601, cited by the learned chief jus- 
te communicate that notice to his agents, be- tice, is very far from establishing the naked 
fore the event which raises the question hap- doctrine that notice to the principal is nc 
pens. . . . We have been pressed with the tice eo instanti to the agent, 
inconvenience of requiring eveiy trading - (w) Louisiana State Bank w. Senecal, 
company to communicate to their agents 13 La. 525. 

evei-ywhere whatever notices they may re- (u>) Bank of V. S. v. Davis, 2 Hill 
ceive; hut the argument ab inconvenienti (N. Y.), 451; North River Bank a. Ay- 
is seldom entitled to much weight in de- mar, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 262. 
ciding legal questions ; and, if it were, {x) See Powles v. Page, 3 C. B. 16 ; 


agency, (p) Thus, he may borrow money, if the exigencies 
and necessities of his position require it, and make his owner 
liable, and pledge the ship (by bottomry, for the most part) for 
the repayment, (z) But this authority does not usually extend 
to cases where the principal can personally act, as in the home 
port, (a) or in a port where the owner has a specific agent for 
this purpose, (b) and by parity of reason not in a port so near 
the owner's home that he may be consulted, without inconven- 
ience and injurious delay, (c) So, too, under such circum- 
stances, he may, without any special authority, sell the proper- 
ty intrusted to him, in a case of extreme necessity, and in the 
exercise of a sound discretion. Nor need this necessity be ac- 
tual, in order to justify the master and make the sale valid. 
If the ship was in a peril, which, as estimated from aU the facts 
then within his means of knowledge, was imminent, aijd made 
it the only prudent course to sell the ship as she was, without, 
further endeavors to get her out of her dangerous position, this 
is enough, and the sale is justified and valid, although the pur- 
chasers succeed in saving her, and events prove that this might 
have been done by the master. But it must be a case where 
a sudden and entire change of wind or weather, or some other 
favorable circumstance which no one at the time could have 
rationally expected, became the means of her safety; for 
although the powers and duty of the master should not de- 
pend on matters which are alike beyond control and fore- 

Porter V. Bank of Rutland, 19 Vt. 410, thur v. Barton, 6 M. & W. 138; The Gra- 

425 ; Fulton Bank v. N. Y. & S. Canal titudine, 3 Rob. Ad. 240 ; Stainbank v. 

Co. 4 Paigo, 127 ; National Bank v. Nor- Fenning, 6 E. L. & E. 412; The Fortitude, 

ton, 1 Hill (N. Y,), 575 ; The New Hope, 3 Sumner, 228. 

&c. Co. V. The Phcenix Bank, 3 Comst. (a) Lister v. Baxter, Stra. 695 ; Patten 

156, 166; Banks u. Martin, 1 Met. 308 ; w. The Randolph, Gilp. 457 ; Ship Lavi- 

Story on Agency, §§ 140 a, 140 d. nia v. Barclay, 1 Wash. C. C. 49; Lord 

(y) Whether an action may be main- Ahivger, Arthur v. Barton, 6 M. & W. 

tained against an owner, which is ground- 138. 

ed on the exercise of this peculiar and ex- (b) Pritchard v. Schooner Lady Hora- 

traordinary authority by one who was not tia. Bee, Ad. 167. 

the master on the register, but by appoint- (c) Johns v. Simons, 2 Q. B. 425 ; Ar- 

ment of the owner had virtually acted as thur v. Barton, 6 M. & W. 138; Mackin- 

master, gucere: see Stonehouse v. Gent, 2 tosh, o. Mitchcson, 4 Exch. 175; Beldon 

Q. B. 431, 11.; Smith u. Davenport, 34 v. Campbell, 6 E.L.&E. 473,8. c. 6 Exch. 

Me. 520. 886, where Robinson v. Lyall, 7 Price, 592, 

(r) Barnard v. Bridgeman, Moore, 918; was questioned. 
Weston V. Wright, 7 M. & W. 396 ; Ai-- 

CH. ni.] 



sight, (d) it is still certain that the sale of a ship by the master 
can be justified and made valid only by a strict necessity. 




It is a rule of law in respect to aU agencies, that where 
money is paid to one as agent, to which another as principal 
has color of right, the right of the principal cannot be tried in 
an action brought by the party paying the money against the 
agent as for money had and received to the use of such party ; 
but such action should be brought against the principal, (e) 

(d) The Brig Sarah Ann, 2 Sumner, 
2U6 ; Hunter v. Parker, 7 M. & W. 322. 

(c) Bamford v. Shuttleworth, 11 A. & 
E. 926; Sadler v. Evans, 4 Burr. 1984; 
Horsfall v. Handley, 8 Taunt. 136; Cos- 
tigan V. Newland, 12 Barb. 456. Yet if 
notice not to pay over has been given, 
then the agent may be sued. Lord Mans- 
field, Sadler v. Evans, 4 Burr. 1986 ; Ed- 
wards V. Hodding, 5 Taunt. 815; Hear- 
sey V. Pniyn, 7 Johns. 179 ; Elliott v. 
Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137 ; Bend v. Hoyt, 
13 id. 263; La Farge v. Kneeland, '7 
Cowen, 456. See however, as to the lia- 
bility of collectors of the customs, Gary 
V. Curtis, 3 How. 236. — And in some 
cases it has been held that even without 
notice, the agent may be held liable for 
money had and received, if he have not 
actually paid over the money to the prin- 
cipal, or done something equivalent to 
it : and the mere entering the amount to 
the credit of the principal, or making a 
rest, is not equivalent to payment over. 
BuUer v. Harrison, Cowp. 565 ; Cox v. 
Prentice, 3 M. & Sel. 344. But upon 
these cases Mr. Smith comments as fol- 
lows : " It will be observed that in neither 
of these cases could the principal himself 
ever by possibility have claimed to retain 
the money for a single instant, had it 
reached his hands, the payment having 
been made by the plaintiff under pm'e 
mistake of facts, and being void ab initio, 

as soon as that mistake was discovered, 
so that the agent would not have been 
estopped from denying his principal's 
title to the money, any more than the 
factor of J. S. of Jamaica, who has 
received money paid to him under the 
supposition of his employer being J. S. 
of Trinidad, would be estopped from re- 
taining that money against his employer, 
in order to return it to the person who 
paid it to him. Besides which, in Bul- 
ler V. Harrison, had the agent paid the 
money he received from the underwriter 
in discharge of the foul loss, over to his 
principal, he would have rendered him- 
self an instrument of fraud which no 
agent can be obliged to do. Except in 
such cases as these, the maxim, respondeat 
superior, has been applied, and the agent 
held responsible to no one but his prin- 
cipal." Merc. Law, B. 1, c. 6, § 7. In 
Snowdon v. Davis, i Taunt. 359, a sheriff 
had issued a waiTant on mesne process, 
to distrain the goods of A; the baihff 
levied the debt upon the goods of B, and 
paid it over. Held, that money had and 
received would lie against the bailiff. 
Mansfield, C. J., said : " The bailiff pays 
the money over to the sheriff, and the 
sheriff to the exchequer, and it is ob- 
jected, that as it has been paid over, the 
action for money had and received does 
not lie against the bailiff; and this is 
compared to the case of an agent, and the 


For a party who deals with an agent (acting as such, and 
within the scope of his authority), has, in general, no right 
to separate him from his principal and hold him liable in his 
personal capacity. The agent owes an account of his actions 
to his principal, and that he may be able to render that account, 
the law, except under special cncumstances, refuses to impose 
upon him a duty to any third party. 

We here close all that was proposed to be said of agents as 
parties to contracts entered into by them in their representative 
capacity. The relation between agent and principal constitutes 
itself a distinct contract, and the considerations growing out 
of it might, in a stiictly accurate division, find a place in 
that part of this work which treats of the Subject- Matter of 
contracts. But it has been deemed expedient in this instance, 
as in some others, to sacrifice logical order to the convenience 
of the reader ; and such observations as seem to be required 
by the contract of Agency, properly so called, are subjoined in 
the following section. 




An agent with instructions is bound to regard them in fevery 
point ; nor can he depart from them, without making himself 

authorities are cited of Sadler v. Evans; qucrl The plaintiff pays it nnder the 

Campbell u. Hall, 1 Cowp. 204 ; BiiUer terror of process, to redeem his goods, 

V. Harrison, 2 id, 565, and several others, not with an intent that it should be de- 

In the case of Sadler v. Evans, the money livered over to any one in particular." 

was paid to the agent of Lady Windsor, But this case has been regarded by high 

for Lady Windsor s use ; in that of BuUer authority as establishing a stronger doc- 

V. Harrison, the money was paid to the trine than that on which Sir James Mans- 

broker, expressly for the benefit of the field appears to have placed it. In Smith 

assured. In Pond o. Underwood, the v. Sleap, 12 M. & W. 588, Parka, B., 

money was paid for the use of the ad- referring to Snowdon ;;. Davis, said : "It 

ministrator. Can it in this case be said was there held that a party who had re- 

with any propriety, that the money was ceived money wrongfully could not set 

paid to the baihff for the purpose of pay- up as a defence that he had received it 

ing it to the sheriff, or to the intent that for, and paid it over to, a third person." 

the sheriff might pay it into the exche- In the same case a dictum of the Court 

CH. III.] 



responsible for the consequences, (g-) If he have no instruc- 
tions, or indistinct or partial instructions, his duty will depend 
upon the intention and understanding of the parties. This may- 
be gathered from the circumstances of the case, and especially, 
from the general custom and usage in relation to that kind of 
business. (A) But he cannot defend himself by showing a con- 
formity to usage, if he has disobeyed positive instructions. If 
loss ensue from his disregard to his instructions, he must sustain 
it ; if profit, he cannot retain it, but it belongs to his principal, (i) 
A principal discharges his agent from responsibility for de- 
viation from his instructions, when he accepts the benefit of 
his act. (k) He may reject the transaction altogether ; (Z) and 

of Exchequer is reported, to the effect 
that a payment to A, expressly as the 
agent of B, for the purpose of redeeming 
goods wrongfully detained by B, and a 
receipt by A expressly for B, would make 
a case upon wluch an action against A 
for money had and received, could be 
maintained. And in the case of Parker 
V. Bristol and Exeter Railway, 7 E. L. & 
E. 528, where the defendants had refused 
to deliver the plaintiff's goods until he 
paid an excess over the proper amount 
due for freight money, it was held that he 
might maintain an action to recover this 
excess from the defendants, although they 
received a portion of it only as agents 
for the Great Western Railway Com- 
pany ; the principle being " that an ac- 
tion for money had and received lies to 
recover back money which has been ob- 
tained through compulsion even although 
it has been received by an agent who 
acted for the principal." 

(g) Leverick w. Meigs, 1 Co wen, 645 ; 
Marshall, C. J., Manella v. Bany, 3 
Cranch, 41.'), 439; Kingston !;. Kincaid, 
1 Wash. C. C. 454; Rundle v. Moore, 
3 Johns. Cas. 36 ; Loraine v. Cartwright, 
3 Wash. C. C. 151 ; Ferguson v. Porter, 
3 Elor. 27. — "And no motive connected 
with the interest of the principal, how- 
ever honestly entertained, or however 
wisely adopted, can excuse a breach of 
the instructions." Washington, J., in 
Courcier v. Ritter, 4 Wash. C. C. 549, 
551 : but compare Eorrestier v. Board- 
man, I Story, 43. — If in obedience to 
the instructions, the agent do an act 
which is ilfegal in fact, though not clearly 
in itself a breach of law, nor known by 
the agent to be so, he is entitled to be in- 

TOL. I. 6 

demnified by the principal for the conse- 
quences. Betts V. Gibbins, 2 A. & E. 57; 
Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bing, 66, 72 ; Ives 
V. Jones, 3 Ired. L. 538. Eor a severe 
application of the general rule, see Hays 
V. Stone, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 128. 

(h) Marzetti v. Williams, 1 B. & Ad. 
415 ; Sutton v. Tatham, 10 A. & E. 27 ; 
Sykes t>. Giles, 5 M. & W. 645 ; Kingston 
V. Wilson, 4 Wash. C. C. 315. — And if 
the agent is employed to act in some par- 
ticular business or trade he may bind his 
principal by following the usages of that 
trade, whether the principal is aware of 
them or not. Pollock v. Stables, 12 Q. 

B. 765 ; Bayliffe u. Butterworth, 1 Exch. 
425 ; there Parke B., distinguishing the 
case of Bartlett, v. Pentland, 10 B. &. C. 
760, said : " That however is a different 
question from the present, which is one 
of contract. In the case of a contract 
which a person orders another to make for 
him, he is bound by that contract if it is 
made in the usual way." 

{{) Cathn V. Bell, 4 Camp. 184 ; Parkist 
V. Alexander, 1 Johns. Ch. 394 ; Segar v. 
Edwards, 11 Leigh, 213. 

(k) Clarke v. Perrier, 2 Ereem. 48; 
Prince v. Clark, 1 B. & C. 186. 

{I) Roe V. Prideaux, 10 East, 158. — 
If, however, an agent has done more than 
he was authorized to do, the execution, 
though void as to the excess, may be held 
good for the rest, at least in equity. But 
it is necessary in such a case that the 
boundaries between the excess and the 
execution of the power should be clearly 
distinguishable. Sir Thomas Clarke, V 

C. Alexander v. Alexander, 2 Ves. Sen., 
644; Campbell v. Leach, Ambl. 740; 
Vanada v. Hopkins, 1 J. J. Marsh. 285, 


if he advanced money on goods which his agent purchased in 
violation of his authority, he is not bound to return the goods 
to the agent when he repudiates the sale, but has his lien on 
them, and may hold them as the property of the agent, (m) 
But he must reject the transaction at once, and decisively, as 
soon as fuUy acquainted with it. For if he delays doing this, 
that he may have his chance of making a profit, or if he per- 
forms acts of ownership over the property, he accepts it, and 
confirms the doings of the agent, (w) 

The question has arisen, whether a principal is bound by the 
act of an agent, who executes his commission in part only ; as 
if being directed and authorized to buy two houses, he buys one 
only ; or to buy fifty shares of stock, he buys twenty-five ; or to 
buy one hundred bales of cotton he buys fifty. It has been 
said that the principal is bound by the partial execution of the 
agent's authority, (o) But it is plain that cases which present 
this question may difier essentially. K one is made agent to 
purchase a lot of woodland and a saw-mill, and purchases either 
alone, it. would be a hardship upon the principal to be compelled 
to take that, when it might be nearly valueless to him without 
the other. But if the authority which he gave his agent to buy 
both, was in such a form that the seller of one, after due inquhy, 
was perfectly justified in believing the agent authorized to buy 
either separately, the principal should be held. We should say, 
that the principal might generally be held ; but would not be, 
where he could show that the things embraced within the 
authority he gave were united in that authority, and in his 
intention, and that it would be a detriment to him to take a 
part only. 

Some conflict appears to exist as to the right of an agent to 
delegate his authority. On the one hand, the general principle, 
that delegatus non potest delegare, is certain, (p) An agent can 

294; Siigdcn on Powers, ch. 9 § 8. — (m) Lord iJfrrrfwjcfe, Cornwall «. Wil- 

Antl in some cases it lias been lield at law son, i Ves. Sen. 510 ; Lord Eldon, Kemp 

that an agent transcending his anthority v. Pryor, 7 Ves. 240, 247. 

in part, hind.s his principal for the part {») Prince v. Clark, 1 B. & C. 186; 

which was performed in accordance with Cornwall v. Wilson, Ves. Sen. 509. 

the authority. Gordon v. Buchanan, 5 (o) Gordon u. Buchanan, 5 Yerg. 81. 

Yerg. 71 ; Johnson v. Blasdale, 1 Sm. & (p) Combe's Case, 9 Rep. 75 b, 76a. 

M. 17. — See Wintle w. Crowther, 1 Cr. — This maxim has frequent application 

& J. 310 in cases of powers. Ingram v. Ingram, 

CH. ni.J AGHNTS. M3 

do for his principal only that which his principal authorizes , 
and if the principal appoint an agent to act for him as his repre- 
sentative in any particular business, this agent has not thereby 
a right to make another person the representative of his prin- 
cipal. The employment and trust are personal ; they may rest 
on some ground of personal preference and confidence, and on 
the knowledge which the principal has of his agent's ability, and 
the belief he has of his integrity. But if the agent, merely by 
virtue of his agency, may substitute one person in his stead, he 
may another, or any other, and thus compel the principal to be 
represented by one whom he does not know, or be bound by 
obligations cast upon him by one whom he does know, and 
because he knows him would refuse to employ. But, on the 
other hand, the principal may, if he chooses, give this very 
power to his agent, (q) In the common printed forms of letters 
of attorney, we usually find the phrase, " with power of substi- 
tution," and after this a promise to ratify whatever the attorney, 
'' or his substitute," may lawfully do in the premises. That the 
agent has this power, when it is given to him in this way, can- 
not be doubted. But it must be as certain that the principal 
may confer the same power otherwise ; and not only by other 

2 Atk. 88; Alexander v. Alexander, 2 — Nor can a factor. Solly v. Rathbone, 
Ves. Sen. 643; Hamilton v. Royse, 2 2M.&Sel. 298; Catlin «. Bell, 4 Camp. 
Sch. & L. 330. A notice to quit, given 183. — A distinction, however, is to be 
by an agent of an agent, is not sufficient taken between the employment of a ser- 
without a recognition by the principal, vant and the delegation of the authority. 
Doe V. Robinson, 3 Bing. N. C. 677. — An agent, like another person, may act 
An attachment for non-payment of costs by the hand of a servant as well as by 
cannot be supported by a demand of the his own hand, in cases where the act is 
costs by a third person, authorized by the merely physical, or where mind enters into 
attorney to receive them. Clark v. Dig- it so little that it would be absurd to say 
num, 3 M. & W. 319. — In an action on that the difference between one mind and 
an agreement for the sale of goods, at a another could be of any moment. Lord 
valuation to be made by A, the issue was, Ellenborough, Mason v. Joseph, 1 Smith, 
whether a valuation was made by A. It 406. See also, Powell v. Tnttle, 3 Comst. 
appeared that the goods were in fact val- 396 ; Moor v. Wilson, 6 Foster (N. H.), 
ued by B, A's clerk. Hdd, that the de- 332 ; Comm. Bank of Penn. v. Union 
fendant was not bound by it, unless it Bank of N. Y., 1 Kern. 203. See also, 
were shown that it was agreed between Williams v. Woods, 16 Md. 220. 
the parties that B's valuation should be (?) Palliser v. Ord, Bunb. 166. — A 
taken as A's ; and that the fact of the de- power coupled with an interest, given to A 
fendant's seeing B valuing, and making and his assigns, passes with the interest to 
no objection until B told him the amount, A's devisee, to the executor of that de- 
was not evidence of such agreement, visee, and to the assignee of the devisee. 
Ess V. Truscott, 2 M. & W. 385. — A &c. ; for the word assigns includes both 
broker cannot delegate his authoritv. assignees in law and in fact. How v. 
Henderson v. Barnewall, 1 Y. & J. 387; Whitefield, I Vent. 338, 339; s. c. as 
Cockran v. Irlam, 2 M. & Sel. 301, n. How v. Whitebanck, 1 Freem. 476. 


language, but without any express words whatever, (r) And 
there are many acts which an agent must necessarily do 
through the agency of other persons, and which are valid when 
so done, (s) If a principal constitutes an agent to do a busi- 
ness which obviously and from its very nature cannot be done 
by the agent otherwise than through a substitute, or if there 
exists in relation to that business a known and established 
usage of substitution, in either case the principal would be 
held to have expected and have authorized such substitution, (t) 
So too, where an agent without authority appoints a substitute, 
the principal may, either by words or acts, so confirm and ratify 
such substitution, as to give to it the same force and effect as if 
it had been originally authorized, (u) 

A substitute of an agent who had no authority to appoint 
him, cannot be held as the agent of the original principal, but is 
only the agent of the agent who employs him, (v) and who is 
accordingly his principal ; and the person so employed is bound 
only to his immediate employer, and can look only to him for 
compensation, (w) But a substitute appointed by an agent, 
who has this power of substitution, becomes the agent of the 
original principal, and may bind him by his acts, and is responsi- 
ble to him as his agent, and may look to him for compensation. 

An agent is bound to great diligence and care for his prin- 
cipal ; not the utmost possible, but all that a reasonable man 
under similar circumstances, would take of his own affairs, (x) 
And where the instructions are not specific, or do not cover the 

()•) Moon V. Guardians of Whitney (u) Tindnl, C. J., Doe v. Robinson, 3 

Union, 3 Bing. N. C. 814 ; GiUis v. Bailey, Bing. N. C. 677, 679 ; Mason v. Joseph, 

1 Foster (X. H.), H9. 1 Smith, 406. 

(s) K(js.-iitcr 0. Trafalgar Life A. A., 27 (v) Cobb v. Becke, 6 Q. B. 930 ; Rob- 

Beav. 377. bins v. Fennoll, 11 id. 248. 

(() An architect employed by defend- (w) Cleaves v. StockwcU, 33 Me. 341. 
ants to draw a specification for a building (x) Co. Litt. 89 a ; Chapman v. Wal- 
proposcd to bo erected, himself employed ton, 10 Bing. 57 ; Lawler v. Kcaquick, 1 
the plaintiff to make out tire quantities, Johns. Gas. 174; Kingston v. Kincaid, 1 
which work was to be paid for by the sue- Wash. C. C. 454. — Less tlian ordinary 
cessful competitor for the building con- diligence is required of one who acts as 
tract; the jury found a usage for archi- agent gratuitously; unless indeed he hold 
tccts to have their quantities made out by himself out as a person exercising one of 
surveyors : — it was lield that the plaintiff certain privileged professions or trades, as 
was entitled to recover compensation from that of an attorney. Doorman v. Jenkins, 
the defendants. Moon c\ Guardians of 4 Nev. & M. 170, 2 A. & E. 256; Dart- 
Whitney Union, 3 Bing. N. C. 814; Le- nail v. Howard, 4 B. & C. 345. See 
doux V. Goza, 4 La. An. 160. infra, u. (a). 

CH. III.] 



whole case, there, as we have already stated, he is to conform 
to estabUshed usage, as that which was expected from him. (t/) 
This usage may be generally proved by ordinary means ; but in 
some instances, as in relation to negotiable bills and notes, it is 
required and defined by the law ; and here it must be followed 
precisely, (z) And an agent is bound to possess and exert the 
skill and knowledge necessary for the proper performance of the 
duties which he undertakes, (a) 

The responsibility of an agent, whether for positive miscon- 
duct, or for deviation from instructions, is not measured by the 
extent of his commission or compensation, but by the loss or 

(y) Ante, p. 81, note [h) ; Wiltshire v. 
Sims, I Camp. 258. — And the usage if 
followed (in the case where there are no 
express instructions), is a defence to the 
cliarge of negligence. Russell v. Hankey, 
6 T. R. 12. As to the factor's duty to 
insure, see Smith v. Lascelles, 2 T. R. 189 ; 
Tickel V. Short, 2 Ves. Sen. 239. 

(z) Crawford v. Louisiana State Bank, 
1 Mart. ST. s. 214; Miranda v. City Bank 
of New Orleans, 6 La. 740 ; Smedes v. 
Utica Bank, 20 Johns. 372. Yet this 
liability may be limited by the particular 
understanding of the parties; as for in- 
stance, where an agent dealing with nego- 
tiable paper, has been accustomed to do 
business in a certain way different from 
that which the law would otherwise require, 
and the principal employing him may from 
the circumstances be supposed to know 
this ; Mills v. Bank of U. S. 11 Wheat. 
431 ; Allen v. Merchants' Bank, 22 Wend. 
215; Bast Haddam Bank v. Scovil, 
12 Conn. 303. And an agent intrusted 
with a negotiable instrument, and fail- 
ing to fulfil his duty with respect to it, 
is only liable lilce other agents to the ex- 
tent of the loss he has caused, and does 
not have to assume the responsibilities 
which the law-merchant imposes upon a 
negligent parti/ to the bill. Marshall, C. 
J., Hamilton v. Cunningham, 2 Brock. 
367. And see Van Wart v. WooUey, 3 
B. & C. 439, and Van Wart v. Smith, 
1 Wend. 219. An agent, acting with 
ordinary diligence, is not liable for injuries 
caused by his mistake in a doubtful matter 
of law. Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants' 
Bank, 6 Met. 13. 

(a) One who undertakes to act in a pro- 
fessional or other clearly defined capacity, 
as that of carpenter, blacksmith, or the 
like, is bound to exercise the skill appro- 

priate to such trade or profession ; and 
this, it seems, although the undertaking 
be gratuitous. Dartnall v. Howard, 4 B. 
& C. 345; Shiells v. Blackburne, 1 H. 
Bl. 161 ; Bourne v. Biggies, 2 Chitt. 311 ; 
Tindall, C. J., Lamphier v. Phipos, 8 C. & 
P. 479 ; Denew v. Daverell, 3 Camp. 451 ; 
Leighton v. Sargent, 7 Foster (N. H.), 
460. In Wilson v. Brett, 11 M. & W. 
113, it was held that a person who rides a 
horse gratuitously at the owner's request, 
for the purpose of showing him for sale, 
is bound, in doing so, to use such skill as 
he actually possesses ; and if proved to 
be a person conversant with and skilled in 
horses, he is equally liable with a borrower 
for injury done to the horse wliile ridden 
by him. Rolfe, B., said : " The distinc- 
tion I intended to make w^s, that a gra- 
tuitous bailee is only bound to exercise 
such skill as he possesses, wliereas a hirer 
or borrower may reasonably be taken to 
represent to the party who lets, or from 
whom he borrows, that he is a person of 
competent skill. If a person more skilled 
knows that to be dangerous which another 
not so skilled as he, does not, surely that 
makes a difference in the liability. I said 
I could see no difference between negli- 
gence and gross negligence- — that it was 
the same thing, with the addition of a vi- 
tuperative epithet ; and I intended to leave 
it to the jury to say whether the defendant, 
being, as appeared by the evidence, a 
person accustomed to the management of 
horses, was guilty of culpable negligence." 
But Parke, B., only went so far as to say 
that, " In the case of a gratuitous bailee, 
■where his profession or situation is such as tc 
imply the possession of competent skill, he is 
equally liable for the neglect to use it." 
See post, chapter on Bailments, section 


injury which he may cause to his principal, (b) And in general, 
a verdict against a principal for the act of his servant, is the 
measure of the damages which the former may recover against 
the latter, (c) And the agent is responsible if the loss could 
not have happened but for his previous misconduct, although it 
was not immediately caused by it. (d) But the loss must be 
capable of being ascertained with reasonable certainty, (e) 

It may be regarded as a prevailing principle of the law, that 
an agent must not put himself, during his agency, in a position 
which is adverse to that of his principal. (/) For even if the 
honesty of the agent is unquestioned, and if his impartiality 
between his own interest and his principal's might be reUed 
upon, yet the principal has in fact bargained for the exercise of 
all the skill, ability, and industry of the agent, and he is entitled 
to demand the exertion of all this in his own favor, (g-) Thia 
principle is recognized to some extent at law ; (/*) but most 
cases of this kind come before courts of equity. Thus, an 
attorney may not take a gift from his client, although there be 
not the least suspicion of fraud, (i) But the rule is applied not 
so much to those who act as servants, or instruments for some 

{b] Sivem-ight, v. Richardson, 19 Law Lees v. Nuttall, 1 Rus. & M. 53; Dunbar 

rimes, 10; Hamilton v. Cunningham, 2 v. Tredennick, 2 Ball & B. 319; Nonis 

Brock. 350 ; Arrott v. Brown, 6 Whart. v. he Neve, 3 Atk. 38 ; Taylor v. Salmon, 

9; Frothingham v. Everton, 12 N. H. 4 Myl. & C. 134; Huguenin v. Baseley, 

239; Allen v. Suydam, 20 Wend. 321. 14 Ves. 273; Woodhouse v. Meredith, 1 

Yet the principal may maintain an action Jac. & W. 24 ; Barker v. Mai-ine Ins, 

against the agent for a breach of the con- Co., 2 Mason, 369; Church v. Marine 

tract between them, and recover nominal Ins. Co., 1 id. 344 ; Parkist v. Alexander, 

damages, although there be no actual loss. 1 Johns. Ch. 394 ; She]jherd i\ Percy, 4 

Marzetti v. Williams, 1 B. & Ad. 415; Martin, n. s. 267; Crook o. Williams, 20 

Frothingham y. Everton, 12 N. H. 239. Penn. St. 342 ; Coles t. Trecothick, 9 

(c) Mainwaring v. Brandon, 8 Taunt. Ves. 234. An agent may not dispute the 
202, s. c. 2 Moore, 125. title of his principal, unless the principal 

(d) Davis w. GaiTett, 6 Bing. 716 ; Short obtained the goods fnnidalenihj. Hardman 
V. Skipwith, 1 Brock. 103 ; Mallough v. v. Wilcox, 9 Bing. 382, n. [a). 
Barber, 4 Camp. 150; Park w. Hamond, (rj) Thompson v. Havolock, 1 Camp, 
id. 344, 3. 0. 6 Taunt. 495 ; Smith v. 527 ; Diplock v. Blackburn, 3 id. 43. 
Lascelles, 2 T. R. 187 ; Bell v. Cunning- {7i) See infra, note (o). 

ham, 3 Pet. 84, 85 ; De Tastett v. Crou- [i] Lord Erskitie, C, Wright v. Proud, 

sillat, 2 Wash. C. C. 132; Morris u. Sum- 13 Ves. 138; Montesquieu v. Sandys, 18 

merl, id. 203. id. 308 ; see Ker v. Dungannon, 1 Dru. & 

(e) Webster v. De Tastet, 7 T. R. War. 542 ; Middleton u. Welles, 4 Bro. 
157; The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. P. C. 245. Sec also, Cutts t). Salmon, 12 
560; Smith D. Condry, 1 How. 28; Tide- E. L. & E. 316; Holman t). Loyncs, 27 
water Canal Co v. Archer, 9 G. & J. id. 168; Broughton v. Broughton, 31 id. 
479. 587, 

(/) Lees V. Nuttall, 2 Myl. & K. 819 • 

en, III. J AGENTS. 87 

particular thing, as to persons whose employment is rather a 
trust than a mere service. Thus, one holding property for 
another, which it is his duty to sell, cannot himself purchase 
it ; {k) or if he be employed to buy, he cannot sell, (l) A tech- 
nical reason given for this is, that the same person cannot both 
buy and sell. But if employed to sell, where he would not 
himself convey or transfer the property as agent, because the 
principal would do this himself, still the agent cannot bind the 
principal to make the transfer to him or for his benefit, by any 
contract which he makes as his agent. As agent to sell, it is 
his duty to get the highest fair price ; and this duty is incom- 
patible with his wish to buy ; and so, vice versa, if he is an 
agent to purchase. At one time it was understood to be neces- 
sary to show that a trustee had taken undue advantage of his 
position, in order to set aside a purchase by him of that which 
he was a trustee to sell, (m) But this is not so now. (w) At 
present, the rule in equity appears to be, that any act by an 
agent with respect to the subject-matter of the agency injurious 
to his principal, may be avoided by the principal. If an agent 
to sell become the purchaser, or if an agent to buy be himself 
the seller, a court of chancery, upon the timely application of 
the principal, wiU presume that the transaction was injurious, 
and will not permit the agent to contradict this presumption ; — 
unless, indeed, he can show that the principal, when furnished 
with all the knowledge he himself possessed, gave him previous 
authority to be such buyer or seller, or afterwards assented to 
such purchase or sale, (o) And even where the, sale is a judicial 
sale, under a title superior to that of the trustee or the cestui que 

{h) Lowther v. Lowther, 13 Ves. 103; Pike, 1 Cart. (Ind.), 277; Mason v. Mar- 

Wren v. Kirton, 8 id. 502; Morse v. tin, 4 Md. 124. 

Koyal, 12 id. 355 ; Chiarter v. Trevelyan, (o) Lord Eldon, Coles v. Trecothick, 9 

11 CI. & F. 714. Ves. 234, 247 ; Lord Erslcine, Lowther v. 

(l) Lees V. Nuttall, 2 Myl. & K. 819 ; Lowther, 13 id. 103 ; Ex parte Hughes, 6 

Taylor v. Salmon, 4 Myl. & C. 139; id. 617 ; Murphy w. O'Shea, 2 Jones Law, 

Bunker v. Miles, 30 Me. 431. 422 ; B. I. Comp. v. Henchman, 1 Ves. 

(ni) Jjovd Loughborough, Whichcote . tf. Jr. 289; Ex parte Bennett, 10 Ves. 385; 

Lawrence, 3 Ves. 750. Oliver v. Court, 8 Price, 127 ; Pox v. 

(n) Ex parte Lacy, 6 Ves. 627; Ex Mackreth, 2 Bro. Ch. 400; The York 

parte Bennett, 10 Ves. 385 ; Davoue v. Buildings Co. v. Mackenzie, 8 Bro. P. C. 

Panning, 2 Johns. Oh. 252; Brothers a. 42 ; Molony w. Keman, 2 Dru. & War. 31 , 

Brothers, 7 Ired. Eq. 150; Harrison u. Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 252; 

McHenry, 9 Geo. 164; Sturdevant u. McConaell u. Gibson, 12 111. 128; Pen 


[book I. 

trusti one standing as trustee in respect to such property in his 
possession is not, it seems, permitted to purchase and hold for 
his own benefit, {p) 

Among the obvious and certain duties of an agent, is that 
of keeping a correct account of all money transactions, and 
rendering the same to the principal with proper frequency, or 
whenever called on. [q) The court has compelled the rendering 
of such account after twenty years had elapsed. But, in gen- 
eral, after a considerable time has elapsed, and there are no cir- 
cumstances to repel the presumption of an account rendered, 

sonneau w. Bleakley, 14 id. 15; Dwight 
V. Blackmar, 2 Midi. 330 ; CliUe v. Bar- 
ron, id. 192 ; Alien v. Bryan, 7 Ired. Eq. 
276 ; Moore v. Moore, 1 Seld. 256 ; Con- 
ger V. Ring, 11 Barb. 356 ; Wliite v. Trot- 
ter, 14 Sm. & M-. 30; Miclioud v. Girod, 
4 How. 503 ; Green v. Sargeant, 23 Vt. 
466 ; Cninberland Coal and Iron Co. v. 
Sherman, 30 Barb. 553. Unless the prin- 
cipal object, the transaction stands good ; 
and a tiiird party cannot open it. Jacli- 
son V. "Van Dalfsen, 5 Johns. 43 ; Jackson 
V. Walsh, 14 id. 407 ; Williams's Ex'rs v. 
Marshall, 4 G. & J. 376 ; Litchfield v. 
Cudwortb, 15 Pick. 31 ; Pitt u. Petway, 
12 Ired. L. 69. How far a court of Imo, 
at tlie instance of the principal, will go in 
ayoiding such sales or purchases by the 
agent for his own benefit, is not quite clear. 
Probably in no jurisdiction where chan- 
cery powers have existed from the begin- 
ning, and where courts of law have not 
been compelled to act, in order to prevent 
parties from being without remedy, would 
it be held that a sale by an agent to him- 
self is avoided at law- by the mere dissent 
of the principal, without proof of fraud, or 
breach of a positive instruction to make 
sale to some third party. From the lan- 
guage of tlie court in Jackson v. Walsli, 
14 Johns. 414, 415, itmuy be infeiTed that 
if A, as executor, sell land to B, and B 
on the same day rcconvey to A, the legal 
title is vested in A, in the absence of ac- 
tual fraud. And there is a strong intima- 
tion in Williams's Ex'rs v. Marshall, 4 G. 
& J. 376, 380, that even if it be a chattel 
interest that is sold, the principal, desiring 
to set aside the sale merely on the ground 
that the agent was himself the purchaser, 
must resort to ctpiity. And so it seems 
to be held in Massa(-husctts ; Harrington 
V. Brown, 5 Pick. 521, per curiam; Shel- 
ton V. Homer, "S Met. 4b7. In Perkins j) 

Thompson, 3 N. H. 144, it was decided 
that a deputy-sheriff, who on selling goods 
seized upon an execution, was himself the 
purchaser, thereby became guilty of a con- 
version, and was liable in trover ; but the 
amount paid for the goods was allowed to 
be given in evidence in mitigation of dam- 
ages. At that time, however, the New 
Hampshire courts possessed no equitable 
jurisdiction. And see Lessee of Lazarus 
V. Bryson, 3 Binn. 54. In New Jersey, 
the court, in order to give relief at law, 
held that a sale to himself by an executor, 
administrator, or trustee, intrusted with 
the sale of real estate, must be considered 
absolutely void by common law. Den v. 
Hammel, 3 Hanison, 74, 81. See Mack- 
intosh V. Barber, 1 Bing. 50. 

(p) Jewett V. Miller, 6 Seld. 402. 

(q) Topham v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 572 ; 
Lord Chedworth v. Edwards, 8 Ves. 49 ; 
White V. Lady Lincoln, 8 Ves. 363 ; Lord 
Hardwicke v. Vernon, 14 Ves. 510 ; Lady 
Ormond v. Hutchinson, 13 Ves. 47 ; Lup- 
ton 11. White, 15 Ves. 436 ; Pearse v. 
Green, 1 Jac. & W. 135 ; Motley v. Mot- 
ley, 7 Ired. Eq. 211. See, as to the class- 
es of persons whom equity will compel to 
account, Terry v. Wachcr, 15 Sim. 448. 
— It seems that where the agent has 
made a mistake in the account, he will 
not be bound by the account as given, al- 
though his principal has acted upon the 
presumption of its correctness in his deal- 
ings with third parties — provided there 
was ground from which the principal 
might reasonably have inferred the exist- 
ence of the error. In the case adjudged, 
the principal, like the agent, was a broker, 
and the mistake in the account was one 
which a knowledge of the usage of the 
stock market might have enabled him to 
detect. Dails v. Lloyd, 12 Q B. 531. 

CH. in.] AGENTS. 89 

accepted, and settled, the jury are instructed to make that pre- 
sumption, (r) The agent of an agent is generally accountable 
only to his own principal, and not to the principal of the party 
for whom he acts ; that is, only his immediate employer can 
call him to account, (s) And a sub-contractor cannot pass by 
his immediate employer and sue the principal or proprietor of 
the work, (t) 

If an agent, without necessity, has mixed the property of his 
principal with his own, in such a way that he cannot render an 
account precisely discriminating between the two, the whole of 
what is so undistinguishable is held to belong to the princi- 
pal ; (u) for it was the duty of the agent to keep the property 
and the accounts separate, and he must bear the responsibility 
and the consequences of not doing so. 

As the principal is entitled to receive from the agent property 
intrusted to him, with its natural increase, (v) he may charge 
the agent with interest for balances in his hands, unless the 
nature of the transaction, or evidence, direct or circumstantial, 
shows that the intention of the parties was otherwise, (w) This 
may be inferred, for instance, where there has been a long 
accumulation, and the money has lain useless in the agent's 
hands, and the principal has known this, and made no objec- 
tion, (x) 

If an agent employed for any special purpose, discharges his 

(r) Topham u.Braddick, 1 Taunt. 571. Chedworth w. Edwards, 8 Ves. 46 ; Wren 

(s) Stephens w. Badcock, 3 B. & Ad. u. Kirton, 11 Ves. 377 ; Hart v. TenEyck, 

354, where it was held that money had and 2 Johns, Ch. 62, 108. 
received could not be maintained against (u) Brown v. Litton, 1 P. Wms. 141 ; 

an attorney's clerk, who, in the absence of Massey v. Davies, 2 Ves. Jr. 317 ; Diplock 

his master, and authorized by him, re- v. Blackburn, 3 Camp. 43 ; Short v. Sldp- 

ceived certain money due to the plaintiff with, 1 Brock. 103. 

which the attorney had been employed by {to) Dodge v. Perkins, 9 Pick. 368, 388. 

the plaintiff to collect; although the ab- "Upon the principles of the common law, 

sence of the attorney (who proved to be we think it clear that interest is to he al- 

in a state of insolvency) continued, and lowed, where the law by implication makes 

the defendant had not paid over the mon- it the duty of the party to pay over the 

ey to him or his estate. The agent when money to the owner, without any previous 

he received the money had given a receipt demand on his part " Putnam, J. As 

signed "for Mr. S. J. [the attorney], J. to receivers, see y. JoUand, 8 Ves. 72. 

B." [the defendant]. See also, Pinto v. (.r) Lord Eltenborough seems to have 

Santos, 5 Taunt. 447 ; Myler v. Fitzpat- been of opinion in Rogers v. Boehm, 2 

rick. Mad. & G. 360. Esp. 704, that neither at law nor in equi- 

(«) Lake Erie R. E. Co. w. Eckler, 13 ty, if money had been remitted to an agent, 

Ind. 67. and he suffered it to remain dead in hia 

(m) Lupton V. White, 15 Ves. 436, 440 ; hands, could he be made liable for inter- 


duty and does all he was required to do, he is entitled to full 
compensation, although the principal decUnes or refuses to take 
advantage of the agent's act, or even to adopt it. Thus, if an 
agent employed to sell land, succeeds in finding, for his princi- 
pal, a buyer on the stipulated terms ; but the principal refuses 
to make the sale and rescinds the authority, the agent may have 
his action for his services ; and the measure of damages (which 
would be a matter of law), would, generally, be his regular com- 
mission on the sale, [y) 

est ; though he should be chargeable with (y) Prickett v. Badger, 1 C. B. N. s. 
interest if he mixed the money with his 296. 
own, or made any use of it. 




Sect. 1. — Who is a Factor, and who, a Broker. 

Factors and Brokers are both and equally agents ; but with 
this difference : the Factor is intrusted with the property, which is 
the subject-matter of the agency; the Broker is only employed 
to make a bargain in relation to it. The compensation to both 
is usually a commission ; and when the agent guarantees the 
payment of the price for which he has sold the goods of his 
principal, then the commission is larger, as it includes a com- 
pensation for this risk. In this case he is said in the books to 
act under a del credere commission. But this phrase is seldom 
used in this country, nor indeed is the word factor often 
employed by mercantile men. The business of factors is 
usually done by commission merchants, who are generally 
called by that name, and who do or do not charge a guaranty 
commission as may be agreed upon by the parties. But the 
charge of a guaranty commission gives the factor no increased 
authority over the property, [a) 



Whether a factor who sells under a del credere or guaranty 
commission becomes thereby a principal debtor to his principal 

(a) Morris v. Cleasby, 4 M. & Sel. 566 ; Thompson v. Perkins, 3 Mason, 232, and 

cases cited by Story, J. 


or only a surety, has been somewhat doubted ; {b) if he be a 
principal debtor, his employer may demand the price of him 
without looking to the buyer. If he be only a surety, he is 
bound to pay only if the buyer does not. It appears to be now 
settled that he is still only a sm-ety, and that recourse must be 
had first to the principal debtor, on whose default only the factor 
is liable ; (c) not that the employer must sue the buyer before 
he sues the factor, but that he can sue the factor only because 
the buyer neglects or refuses to pay, and when he so neglects or 
refuses. It seems, however, to be still held, that the promise of 
the factor to guarantee the debt is not within the statute of 
frauds, as a promise to pay the debt of another, {d) If he takes 
a note from the purchaser of the goods, this note belongs to his 
principal. But if he takes depreciated paper he must make it 
good, (e) If money be paid him and he remits it, he does not 
guarantee its safe arrival, but is bound only to use proper 
means and proper care in sending it ; (/) unless it is agreed 
that he shall guarantee the remittance, and may charge a 
commission; in which case he is liable although he does 
not charge the commission, {g) He has the same claim on 

(h) Grove v. Dubois, 1 T. R. 112 ; Lev- for the aniount and remitted the same to 

erick v. Meigs, 1 Cowen, 645, 663, 664. the plaintiff. They also pm'chased an- 

(c) Houston V. Matthews, 3 B. & P. other bill of one Imbert, which they also 
485 ; Morris v, Ck-asby, 4 M. & Scl. 566 ; remitted to the plaintiff, in part payment 
Gall V Comber, 7 Taunt. 558 ; Peele u. for sales of his goods. Walters and Im- 
Northcotc, 7 Taunt. 478 ; Couturier u. bert failed, and the bills were protested ; 
Hastie, 16 E. L. & E. 562 ; Bradley v. and this action was brought to recover 
Richardson, 23 Vt. 720 ; Thompson v. the amount on the defendants' guaranty. 
Perkins, 3 Mason, 232 ; Wolff v. Kop|)cll, Washington, J. : " The guaranty of the 
5 Hill (N. Y.), 458. See Wolff i'. Kop- defendants extended no further than to the 
pell, 2 Denio, 368, where conflicting opin- sales and receipts of the money arising 
ions arc given on this question by Porter from them. As to Imbert's bill, there- 
aud Band, Senators. fore, there is no pretence for charging the 

(d) Swan n. Nesmith, 7 Pick. 220; defendants with that, as it was a bill pur- 
Wollfu. Koppell, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 458, s. chased by the defendants from a man in 
0. 2 Denio, 368; Couturier v. Hastie, 16 good credit, and it was purchased for the 
E. L. & E. 562 ; Bradley u. Richardson, purpose of a remittance, as the defendants 
23 Vt. 7iu. had been directed. But the guaranty ex- 

(e) Dunnell v. Mason, 1 Story, 543. tends to Walters' bill which was not pnr- 
(/) Lucas V. Groning, 7 Taunt. 164 ; in chased with the proceeds of the plaintiff's 

Muhler V. Bohlciis, 2 Wash. C. C. 378, goods, but was given by the purchaser of 

the defendants received consignments from those goods instead of money. If the de- 

thc plaintiff, and engaged to sell them on fendants were bound to guarantee the 

a del credere commission, and to guar- payment of this debt when contracted, 

antee the debts. They sold to one Walters the guaranty continues, because a bill 

part of the goods, and when the money which is dishonored is no payment." 
for which the goods were sold became (g) Henbach v. Mollman, 2 Duer, 227. 
due, they took Walters' bill of exchange 


his principal for advances as if he did not charge a commis- 
sion, (A) 



A broker or factor is bound to ordinary care, and is liable for 
any negligence, error, or default, incompatible with the care 
and skill properly belonging to the business that he under- 
takes, (t) It is his business to sell ; but the power to sell does 
not necessarily include the power to pledge. This rule was 
formerly appKed with great severity ; (j) but it seems to be 
now the law, aided by some statutes both of England and 
of this country, (k) that he may pledge the goods for advances 
made in good faith for his principal, and perhaps otherwise if 
distinctly for the use and benefit of the principal, (I) or for ad- 
vances made to himself to the extent of his lien ; (m) or, perhaps, 
generally, if the owner has clothed the factor with all the indicia 
of ownership so as to enable him to mislead others, and the 
pledgee had no notice or knowledge that he was not owner ; (n) 

(h) Graham v. Ackroyd, 19 E. L. & right. Guerreiro v. Peile, 3 B. & Aid. 

E. 654 ; 8. c. 10 Hare, 192. 616. 

(t) Vere v. Smith, 1 Vent. 121. (k) See ante, p. 58, u. (h), for statutes 

(j) The factor cannot pledge the goods which regulate the power of the factor to 

of his principal as security for his own pledge the goods of his principal. For 

debt. Patcrson v. Tash, 2 Str. 1178. interjiretations of these acts see Stevens 

The principal may recover goods pledged v. Wilson, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 512, s. c.'3 

by the factor, by tendering to him the sum Denio, 472 ; Zachrison ;;. AJiman, 2 Sandf. 

due to him, without any tender to the 68; Jennings v. Memll, 20 Wend. 1 ; 

pawnee. Daubigny v. Duval, 5 T. R. Navulshaw v. Brownrigg, 13 E. L. & E. 

604; M'Combie v. Davies, 7 East, 5; 261. 

Sollyi). Rathbone, 2M. & Sel. 298. See (?) Mann <;. Shiffher, 2 East, 523; 

also De Bouchout v. Goldsmid, 5 Ves. M'Combie v. Davies, 7 East, 5 ; Solly v. 

211; Martini w. Coles, 1 M. & Sel. 140; Rathbone, 2 M. & Sel. 298; Pultney v 

Fielding i/. Kymer, 2 Br. & B. 639; Keymer, 3 Esp. 182. "A factor may de- 

Queiroz u. Trueman, 3 B. & C. 342 ; hver tlie possession of goods on which he 

Kinder v. Shaw, 2 Mass. 398 ; Odiome v. has a lien to a third person, with notice of 

Maxcy, 13 Mass. 178; Bowie v. Napier, the lien and with a declaration that the 

1 McCord, 1 ; Van Amringe v. Pea- transfer is to such person as agent of the 

body, 1 Mason, 440; Wlutaker on factor, and for his benefit." Kent, C. J., 

Lien, 123, 136; Rodriguez v. Heffeman, TJrquhart v. Mclver, 4 Johns. 103, 116. 

5 Johns. Ch. 429; Nowell v. Pratt, 5 (m) Id. 

Cush. 111. He cannot barter the goods (n) Boyson v. Coles, 6. M. & Sel. 14; 

of Ms principal, but must sell them out- Williams v. Bartjn, 3 Bing. 139. 


and he may pledge negotiable paper intrusted to him by his 
principal, to a party who has no notice or knowledge of his 
want of title, (o) 

A principal does not, in general, lose his property in his goods 
by any act of the factor, as long as he can trace and identify 
them, either in the factor's hands, or into the hands of any rep- 
resentative of the factor, who holds them only in the factor's 
right, and not in his own independent right, as purchaser, 
pledgee, &c. (p). 

He is bound to obey positive instructions precisely, but not 
mere wishes or inclinations ; (q) and will be justified in depart- 
ing from precise instructions if an unforseen emergency arises, 
and he acts in good faith and for the obvious and certain ad- 
vantage of his principal, (r) 

Factors or brokers must conform to the usages of the busi- 
ness ; and they have the power such usages would give them, 
and can bind the principal only to a usual obligation. A factor 
need not advise insurance, stiU less make insurance ; but having 
possession of the goods he may insure them for the owner, (s) 
A factor has discretionary power in regard to the time, mode, 
and circumstances of a sale ; but he must exercise this discre- 
tion in good faith; and if he hastens a sale improperly, and 
without good reason, it is void, (t) 

If he has any instructions how to dispose of the goods, and 
has made no advances on them, he is certainly bound by these 
instructions, (u) 

(o) Collins V. Martin, IB. & P. 648 ; (() " But it seems, if the sale be hurried 

Treuttell v. Barandon, 8 Taunt. 100. in order to enable the factor to realize his 

(p) Warner f. Martin, 11 How. 209; advances, and it is not made in due course 

Beach 17. Forsyth, 14 Barb. 499; Black- of business, it will be void." .... The 

man v. Green, 24 Vt. 17 ; Bonny v. Peg- agents, " were bound as factors to sell at 

ram, 18 Mo. 191. See Fahnestock v. reasonable and fair prices; and it would 

Bailey, '3 Met. (Ky.), 48, which is a be contrary to their duty, and a fraudulent 

strong case upon this point. proceeding on their part to sell the goods 

{}) Brown ;;. McGran, 14 Pet. 479; at a greatly reduced price, or in common 

Ekins V. Marklish, Ambl. 184; Lucas «. parlance, to sacrifice them, in order the 

Groning, 7 Taunt. 164. more hastily to realize the proceeds." 

(r) Judson v. Sturges, 5 Day, 556 ; Shaw, C. J., Shaw v. Stone, 1 Gush. 228, 

Drummond v. Wood, 2 Caines, 310; 248. 

Liotard v. Graves, 3 Caines, 226 ; Lawlor («) Marfield v. Goodhue, 3 Comst. 

V. Keaquick, 1 Johns. Cas. 174; Forrea- 62; Brown v. McGran, 14 Pet. 479; 

tier V. Bordman, 1 Story, 43. Smart v. Sandars, 5 M. G. & S. 895. 

(s) De Forest v. The Fire Insurance 
Co. 1 Hall, 84. 


A factor is a general agent from the nature of his employ- 
ment ; and if he be known as a general commission merchant 
or factor, he binds the principal who employs him, although for 
the first time, by any acts fairly within the scope of his employ- 
ment, even if they transcend the limits of his instructions ; if 
the party dealing with him had no knowledge of those limits. 

If he sends goods to his principal, contrary to order or to his 
duty, the principal may refuse to receive them, and may return 
them, or if the nature of the goods or other circumstances make 
it obviously for the interest of the factor that they should be 
sold, the principal may sell them as his agent, (v) 

If he has no del credere commission, he may still be person- 
ally liable to his principal ; as where he makes himself Hable 
by neglect or default ; or if he sells the goods, of several prin- 
cipals to one purchaser, on credit, taking a note to himself, and 
getting the same discounted, (w) Or if he sells on credit, and 
when that expires takes a note to himself, (x) But if he seU 
on credit and at the time takes a negotiable note which is not 
paid, the loss falls on the principal ; and the factor is not 
bound to pay it, if he has no guaranty commission, although 
the note be made payable to the factor, (y) 

A foreign factor is one who acts for a principal in another 
country ; a domestic factor acts in the same country with his 
principal. A foreign factor is, as to third parties, under ordi- 
nary circumstances, a principal. And though his principal 
may sue such third parties, they cannot sue his principal, for 
they act with the factor only, and on the factor's credit. But 
it seems to be otherwise with the domestic factor. A third 
party dealing with him may have a claim on his principal, un- 
less it can be shown that credit was given to the factor exclu- 
sively, (z) That is, in the case of a foreign factor the pre- 

(v) Kemp V. Pryor, 7 Ves. Jr. 237, 240, (y) Messier v. Amery, 1 Testes, 540 ; 

247 ; Cornwall v. Wilson, 1 "Ves. Sen. Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. 36. 

509. (z) Paterson, v. Gandasequi, 15 East, 

{w) Jackson v. Baker, 1 Wash. C. C. 62 ; Addison v. Gandasscqui, 4 Taunt. 

394, s. c. 445 ; Johnson v. O'Hara, 5 574. The following authorities distin- 

Leigh, 456. But not necessarily so. guish the foreign and domestic factors : 

Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. 36 ; Corlies Gonzales v. Sladen, Bull. N. P. 130; De 

V. Gumming, 6 Cowen, 181. Gaillonw. L'Aigle, 1 B. &P.368; Thomp- 

(x) Hosmer v. Beebe, 2 Martin, n. S. son v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 78 ; Kirk- 

368. Patrick v. Stainer, 22 Wend. 244. 



[book I. 

sumption of law is, that credit was given to him exclusively ; 
in the case of a domestic factor, that credit is given to his prin- 
cipal ; but the presumption may be said to exist only in the ab- 
sence of evidence ; for the intention of the parties, to be drawn 
from the terms of the contract and from circumstances, will de- 
termine whether the party deahng with the factor dealt with 
him as agent or as principal, (a) It seems very nearly and 
perhaps quite settled, that for the purpose of this rule, our 
States are not foreign countries to each other, {b) 

(a) Green v. Kopka, 2 Jur. n s. 1049. 
In this case it is declared tiiat " there is 
no rule of law that a person contracting 
in England as agent of a foreign princi- 
pal is personally liable on the contract. 
In all cases, whether the principal or agent 
is liable is a question of intention, to be 
ascertained b}' the teiTQS of the contract 
and the suiTounding circumstances." 

(6) In Thomson v. Dayenport, 9 B. & 
C. 78, a purchaser in Liverpool repre- 
sented that he bought for persons in Scot- 
land, but did not mention their names. 
The seller did not inquire who they were, 
and debited the party purchabing ; and it 
was held that he might afterwards sue the 
principal for the price. Lord Tenterden, 
C. J., said : " There may be another case, 
and that is where a British merchant is 
buying for a foreigner. According to the 
tmiversal understanding of merchants, and 
of all persons in trade, the credit is then 
considered to be given to the British buyer, 
and not to the foreigner. In this case, the 
buyers lived at Dumfries ; and a question 
might have been raised for the considera- 
tion of the juiy, whetlier, in consequence 
of their living at Dumfries, it may not 
have been understood among all persons 
at Liverpool, where there are great deal- 
ings with Scotch houses, that the plaintiffs 
had given credit to M'Kune only, and not 
to a person living, though not in a foreign 
country, yet, in that part of the king's 
dominions which rendered him not amen- 
able to any process of our courts. But 
instead of directing the attention of the 
Recorder to any matter of that natm'c, the 
point insisted upon by the learned counsel 
at the trial was, that it ought to have been 
part of the direction to the jury, that if they 
were satisfied the plaintiffs, at the time of 
the order being given, knew that M'Kune 
was buying goods for another, even thbugh 
his principal might not be made known to 
them, they, by afterwards debiting ilf/irune 

had elected him for their debtor. The point 
made by the defendant's counsel, there- 
fore, was, that if the plaintiffs knew that 
M'Kune was dealing with them as agent, 
though they did know the name of the 
principal they could not turn round on 
him. The Kecorder thought otherwise : 
he thought tliat though they did know 
that M'Kune was buying as agent, yet 
if tliey did not know who his principal 
really was so as to be able to write him 
down as their debtor, the defcmlant was 
liable, and so he left the question to the 
jury, and I tliink he did right in so doing. 
The judgment of the court below must 
therefore be aifirmed." — In Kirkpatrick v. 
Stainer, 22 Wend. 244, an agent oi a, for- 
eign mercantile house who induced a mer- 
chant here to make a shipment of goods 
to his principals, to be sold on commis- 
sion, and engaged that insurance should 
be eftedfd eitlicr here or in Europe on 
the property shipped, had been held by 
the Supreme Court not to he personally 
liable for a breach of the agreement to 
insure ; the action, if maintainable, lay 
only against the principals. This deci- 
sion of the Supreme Court was confirmed 
by tlie Court of EiTOrs, Chancellor Wal- 
worth, with some other members of the 
court, dissenting for reasons which cer- 
tainly seem to have much weiglit, al- 
though they did not sufiice to convince 
a mnjority of the Court of Errors. On 
the precise question before us, the Chan- 
cellor says : " Upon a careful examina- 
tion of the law on this subject, I have 
aiTived at the conclusion that there is a 
well-settled distinction between the per- 
sonal liability of an agent, who contracts 
for the benefit of a domestic principal, 
and one who contracts for a principal 
who is domiciled in a foreign country. 
I do not think that by our commercial 
usage it is applicable to the case of a 
piincipal who is domiciled in another 

CH. IV.] 



The factor and the principal may sometimes have con- 
flicting claims against a purchaser ; as the factor for his lien 
for advances, &c., and the principal for his price. In generEil 
it may be said that a purchaser who pays to either, ■wjill be 
protected against the other, if he has no notice or knowledge 
of any valid claim or right belonging to the other, (c) But, 
excepting when such rights exist in the factor, the principal 
has a higher right than he, and may enforce a contract with a 
third party, for his own benefit. 

State of the Union; as the interests of 
trade do not seem to require it. Besides, 
it does not appear to have been applied 
in England to the case of a principal 
residing in Scotland ; although in the 
case of Thompson v. Davenpoi-t, before 
referred to, Lord Tenderten supposed it 
might have been a proper subject of in- 
quiry for the jury, whether tliere was not 
a usage of trade at Liverpool to give the 
credit to the agent where the principal 
resided in Scotland. So far as the law 
is settled on the subject, however, it only 
applies to a principal domiciled in a 
foreign country; or, in the language of 
the common law, ' beyond the seas.' " 
Senator Verplanck gave the only other 
opinion. He thought the Supreme Court 
right, and the majority of the Court of 
Errors agreed with him. But he rests his 
opinion on the ground, that the English 
rule, that the factor of a foreign principal 
is himself liable to the exclusion of the 
principal, rests entirely upon the custom 
of trade in England, and is no part of 
the common law, nor of the law-merchant 
generally ; an^ is not the law of this 
country, unless a particular custom could 
be proved which should give that effect 
to the contract. And therefore, in the 
absence of such evidence of custom, the 
principal is liable as in any other cases 
of contracts by an agent for a principal. 
Such would seem to be the authority of 
this case; but we nevertheless hold the 
rule to be as stated in our text. In 
Taintor v. Prendergast, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 
72, Cowen, J., says, "This suit was 
brought to recover a sum of money ad- 
vanced to the defendant, a citizen of this 
State, in part payment for a, quantity 
of wool which he agreed to deliver to 
the plaintiffs agent. The contract was 
made by the latter without disclosing the 
name of his principal, who was a mer- 
chant residing at Hartford, Connecticut. 

VOL. I. 7 

The agent was a, resident of this State. 
The wool was not delivered as agreed, 
and the question is, whether an action 
can be maintained by the principal. It 
may be admitted, as was urged in the 
argument that whether the principal be 
considered a foreigner or not, his agent 
omitting to disclose his name, would l)e 
personally liable to an action. Even in 
case of a foreign principal, however, I 
apprehend it would be too strong to say, 
that when discovered he would not be 
liable for the price of the commodity pur- 
chased by his agent. This may indeed 
be said, -when a clear intent is shown 
to give an exclusive credit to the agent. 
I admit that such intent may be inferred 
from the custom of trade, where the 
purchaser is known to live in a foreign 
country. No custom was shown or pre- 
tended in the case at bar ; and where 
the parties reside in different States under 
the same confederation, this has • been 
held essential to exonerate the principal. 
Thomson v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 78. 
It will be seen by this case and others 
referred to by it, that the usual and de- 
cisive indication of an exclusive credit 
is, where the creditor knows there is a 
foreign principal, but makes his charge 
in account against the agent. If the 
seller be kept in ignorance that he is 
selling to an agent or factor, I am not 
aware of a case which denies a concur- 
rent remedy." We understand the court 
to mean, that where the principal pur- 
chaser is known, and is known to live 
in a foreign country, there the existing 
custom of ti-ade leads to the inference 
that credit was given exclusively to the 
agent, and this we think the true rule. 

(c) Drinkwater v. Goodwin, Cowper, 
251 ; Atkyns v. Amber, 3 Esp- 493 ; 
Coppin 0. Craig, 7 Taunt. 243 ; Hudson 
V. Granger, 5 B. & Aid. 27 


A factor may buy and sell, sue and be sued, collect money, 
receive payments, give receipts, &c., in his own name; but a 
broker, only in the name of his principal, {d) A factor has a 
lien on the property in his hands, for his commissions, advances, 
and expenses ; (e) but whether the possession of a bill of lading 
duly indorsed, gives the factor a right to take possession of the 
goods and hold them by his lien, is uncertain. We should 
doubt whether the bill of lading, alone, would give him such 
a right. (/) But a factor who accepts a bill drawn on goods, 
which goods are in the hands of a third person to be delivered 
to the factor, acquires undoubtedly a lien on the goods as 
against an attaching creditor, (g-) The consignor may always 
transfer the goods to a third person free from any lien or claim 
of the factor on them to secure his debt, if he transfers them 
before they come into the hands of the factor, (h) Nor has a 
factor any lien on goods in his hands, unless they came to him 
as factor, (i) 

It may be doubted, whether, in England, a factor can sell the 
goods, against the orders of the principal, even if the princi- 
pal expressly refuses to pay or secure his debt to the factor, {j) 
Here, the factor-certainly may sell enough to cover his balances, 
if the principal, after proper demand, refuses to pay or secure 
them , but the factor must protect the principal's interest, as 
to the time and manner of the sale, [k) And the Supreme 
Court of the United States denies that a consignor, having 
received advances, has any right, by any orders, to suspend or 

(d) Barifig v. Corie, 2 B. & Aid. Curtis, 130; Bank of Eochester w, Jones, 
143 ; Hearshy v. Hichox, 7 Eng. (Ark.), 4 Comst. 497. 

12.5. (f) See however, Eice v. Austin, 17 

(e) Williams u. Littlefield, 12 Wend. Mass. 197; Patten t). Thompson, 5 M. & 
362 ; Holbrooke v. Wiglit, 24 Wend. 169. Scl. 350. 

The factor has a general lien, to secure [g) Nesmith u. Dyeing Co. 1 Curtis, 

all advances and liabilities, upon all goods 130. 

which come to his hands us factor. Godin (h) Bank of Eochester v. Jones, 4 

V. London Assur. Co. 1 Burr. 494; Hoi- Corast. 497. 

lingworth y. Tooko, 2 H. Bl. 501 ; Cowel (i) Elliot v. Bradley, 23 Vt. 217; 

V. Simpson, 16 Ves. 276; Stevens v. Dixon v. Stansfield, 11 E. L. & E. 528, 

Eobins, 12 Mass. 180 ; Bryce v. Brooks, S. c. 10 C. B. 398. 

26 Wend. 367 ; The Frances, 8 Cranch, ( /) See Smart v. Sandars, supra. 

419; Dixon u. Stansfield, 11 E. L. & E. (k) Erothingham v. Everton, 12 N. 

528. And the factor obtains an interest H. 239 ; Parlccr ?■. Brancker, 22 Pick. 40; 

sufficient to support his lien, upon accept- Marfield v. Goodhue, 3 Comst. 62 ; Blot 

ing a draft drawn upon the faith of the r. Boiccau, 1 Sandf. Ill, and 3 Comst. 

goods. Nesmith o. Dyeing, &c, Co. 1 78. See ante, p. 70, n. (y). 


control the factor's right of sale, except as to the surplus of the 
goods beyond the factor's advances or liabilities, (l) Nor 
need a factor make a sale ; but after reasonable delay and 
endeavors to sell, he may maintain an action against his prin- 
cipal for his commissions or charges, (m) As to the measure 
of damages in actions against factors for wrongful sales, see 
second volume. 

Possession is necessary to give a lien, and a broker has there- 
fore no lien, (n) In the transactions of business these relations 
are sometimes confounded, and it is not always easy to dis- 
tinguish between the factor and the broker. The best test, 
however, is in the fact of possession ; but even one who has 
possession may sometimes be held to be a broker, (o) Neither 
can delegate his authority, (p) The broker may certainly be the 
agent of both parties, and often is so ; but it would seem from 
the nature of his employment, that the factor can be, generally 
at least, the agent only of the party who employs him. The 
whole subject of the lien of a factor and the rules and principles 
applicable to it, are considered in our chapter on Liens ; and 
the distinction between a factor and broker, in respect to the 
Statute of Frauds, is stated in the section on Bought and sold 

Neither has a righf to his commissions, as a general rule, 
until the whole service, for which these commissions are to 
compensate, is performed, (q) But where the service is begun, 
and an important part performed, and the factor or broker is 
prevented by some irresistible obstacle from completing it, and 
is himself without fault, there it would seem that he may de- 
mand a proportionate compensation, (r) Neither factor nor 
broker can have any valid claim for his commissions or other 
compensation, if he has not discharged all the duties of the 
employment which he has undertaken, with proper care and 

(I) Brown v. McGran, 14 Pet. 479. (p) Catlin v. Bell, 4 Camp. 183; Solly 

(m) Frothinghara v. Everton, 12 N. H. v. Rathbone, and Cockran v. Mam, 2 M. 

239; Upham v. Lefavouf, 11 Met. 174. & Sel. 298, n. (a). 

(n) See Jordan v. James, 5 Ham. 99, {q) Hamond v. Holiday, 1 C. & P. 

where the several classes of liens are dis- 384 ; Dalton v. Irving, 4 C. & P. 289; 

cussed, and the cases cited. But it is of Broad v. Thomas, 7 Bing. 99. 

the very essence 5f a lien that possession (r) Hamond v. Holiday, 1 C. & P. 

accompanies it. 384 ; Broad v. Thomas, 7 Bing. 99 ; Eeixd 

(o) Pickering v. Busk, 15 East, 38. v. Rann, 10 B. & C. 438. 


skill, and enlire fidelity. (5) And for his injurious default, he 
not only loses his claim, but the principal has a claim for 
damages, (t) And if he has stipulated to give his whole time 
to his employer, he will not be permitted to derive any compen- 
sation for services rendered elsewhere, (m) Neither the factor 
nor broker can acquire any claim by services which are in them- 
selves illegal or immoral, or against public policy, (v) 

If a factor, with power to sell, has made advances to his prin- 
cipal, it may not be quite certain whether these advances take 
from the principal the power of revocation. From the cases it 
would seem that the prevailing if not the settled rule in this 
country is against the power of the principal to revoke an au- 
thority which has thus become coupled with an interest. But 
in England it seems to be otherwise, (w) 

(s) Denew v. Daverell, 3 Camp. 451 ; {t) See note (b), p. 86. 
Hamond v. Holiday, 1 C. & P. 384 ; (u) Thompson v. HaTelock, 1 Camp. 

Whiter. Chapman, I Stark. 113; Hurst .')27, and cases cited in note; Massey v. 

r. Holding, 3 Taunt. 32; Dodge w. Tile- Davies, 2 Ves. Jr. 317; Gardner „. 

Eton, 12 Pick. 328. See also Shaw v. M'Cutcheon, 4 Bear. 534. 
Ardcn, 9 Bing. 287 ; Hill v. Feather- {v] Haines v. Busk, 5 Taunt. 521 ; 

stonhaugh, 7 Bing. 569. As to his duty Josephs 0. Pebber, 3 B. & C. 639; Wy- 

to keep accounts, see AVhite v. Lady burd v. Stanton, 4 Esp. 179; Buck v. 

Lincoln, 8 Ves. 363. He must not con- Buck, 1 Camp. 547 ; and Bex v. Shat- 

found the principal's property with his ton, in note; Ai-mstrong v. Toler, 11 

own. Lupton v. White, 15 Ves. 432. Wheat. 258. 

He cannot recover his compensation if he {w) See- note (y), p. 70, in which the 
has embezzled the principal's funds, al- cases on this question are given in con- 
though it exceeds the amount embezzled, nection with the more general subject of 
Turner v. Robinson, 6 C. & P. 16, n. a revocation of an authority ccupled with 
{g'j. an interest. 

CH. v.] SERVANTS. 101 



In England the relation of master and servant is in many 
respects regulated by statutory provisions, and upon some 
points is materially alFected by the existing distinction of ranks, 
and by rules which have come down from periods when this dis- 
tinction was more marked and more operative than at present. 
In this country we have nothing of this kind. With us, a con- 
tract for service is construed and governed only by the general 
principles of the law of contracts. 

The word servant seems to have in law two meanings. One 
is that which it has in common use, when it indicates a person 
hired by another for wages, to work for him as he may direct. 

We may call such a person a servant in fact; but the word is 
also used in many cases to indicate a servant by construction of 
law ; it is sometimes applied to any person employed by an- 
other, and is scarcely to be discriminated in these instances from 
the word agent. This looseness in the use of the word is the 
more to be regretted, because it seems to have given rise to some 
legal difficulties and questions which might have been avoided. 

There are important consequences flowing from the relation 
of master and servant, and it is therefore an important question, 
where this relation exists, and how far it extends. Thus, 
if one wishes to build or repair a house, and contracts with 
another to do this, and the contractor with another, and this 
other with still a third, for perhaps a part of the work, or the 
supply of materials, and the servant of the third by his negligence 
injures some person, has the injured party his right of action 
against the owner of the land or of the house ? Undoubtedly, 
if all employed about the house were his servants, but not 
otherwise. So if an owner of coaches lets one with the horses 


and the coachman for a definite time or a definite journey, 
and while the hirer is using the coach the coachman by his 
neghgence injures a person ; has the injured party now an 
action against the owner? Yes, if the coachman were at the 
time of the wrongful act his servant, and not otherwise. Hence, 
when a master gives general directions to his servant, trusting 
to his discretion, the master may be liable for the servant's mis- 
use of his discretion ; but if he gives specific directions, and the 
servant transcends them, the master is not liable, (a) Again, 
if one employs a person to drive home for him cattle which he 
has bought, and gives the cattle up to the driver, going else- 
where himself, and the driver, or a person employed by the 
driver, by his negligence, injures any one, the injured person 
has, we think, as in the other instances, an action against the 
original party, if the party who did the wrong were at the time 
his servant, and not otherwise. So one was held responsible, 
who employed a day laborer to clean out a drain, in doing which 
he broke up the highway, whereby the plaintiff was injured, [b) 
The general principle is, that a master is responsible for the 
tortious acts of his servant, which were done in his service. It 
is certain and obvious that a master is not responsible for all 
the torts of his servant ; for those, for instance, of which the 
servant is guilty, when they are entiiely aside from his service, 
and have no connection with his duties, or with the command 
or the wish of his master ; as if he should leave his master's 
house at night and commit a felony. There must, then, be 
some principle which limits and defines the rule, respondeat 
superior. And we think it may be clearly seen and stated. 
It is this : the responsibility of the master grows out of, is 
measured by, and begins and ends with, his control of the ser- 
vant, (c) It is true that the policy of holding a master to a 

(a) Oxfoi-d II. Peter, 28 Illinois, 434. unless the trespass is proved to have been 
((<) Sadler v. Henlork, 4 E. & B. 570. autliorized or ratified by him. McManus 
(c) On tliis ground rests the distinc- v. Crickett, 1 East, 106'; Croft v. Alison, 
tion now well established, between the 4 B. & Aid. 590; Lyons r. Martin, 8 A. 
negligence of the servant, and his wilful &E. 512; Goodman u. Kennell, 1 Mo. & 
and malicious trespass: the act in either P. 241, 3 C. & P. 167 ; Sadler w. Hen- 
ease being done in the course of his cm- lock, 30 E. L. & E. 167 ; Foster v. Essex 
ploy. For the former the master Bank, 17 Mass. 479; Wright v. Wilcox, 
answer; for the latter he is held not liable, 19 Wend. 343; Vanderbiit u. Richmond 

OH. v.] 



reasonable care and discretion in the choice of a servant may 
cause a liberal construction of the rule in respect to an injured 
pajty, and may therefore be satisfied in some instances with a 

Turnpike Co. 2 Comst. 479 ; Corbin v. 
American Mills, 27 Conn. 274. But it 
seems that where the duty of the master 
to the party whose property is injured, is 
not merely that which every man owes 
to his neighbor, but a peculiar duty arising 
fi-om a special relation, there that special 
relation may occasion a liability even for 
the wilful tort of the servant. As where 
the relation is one of bailment. In Sin- 
clair V. Peai-son, 7 N. H. 227, Parker, J., 
giving the judgment, said : " It is evi- 
dent, therefore, that the liability of a 
bailee, for a loss occasioned by the act of 
a servant, cannot be made to depend upon 
the question whether the act was wilful or 
otherwise ; or whether the servant, in com- 
mitting it, was doing, or forbearing what 
his master had directed ; for if that were 
the criterion, the bailee would never be 
liable for the act or neglect of his servant, 
unless done by his command, either ex- 
pressed, or in fact to be inferred ; but it 
must depend upon the question whether 
the degree of care and diligence required 
about the preservation, safe-keeping, &c., 
of the thing bailed, has been exercised by 
master and servant." And Ellis v. Tur- 
ner, 8 T. R. 531, was referred to, where a 
loss of part of a cargo having occmTcd in 
consequence of the misconduct of the 
master of the vessel, and an action hav- 
ing been brought by the owner of the 
goods against the owners of the vessel. 
Lord Kent/on said : " Though the loss 
happened in consequence of the miscon- 
duct of the defendant's servant, the supe- 
riors (the defendants) are answerable for 
it in this action. The defendants are re- 
sponsible for the acts of their servant in 
those things that respect his duty under 
them, though they are not answerable for 
his misconduct in those things that do not 
respect his duty to them : as if he were to 
commit an assault upon a third person in 
the course of his voyage." — The rule es- 
tablished in McManus v. Crickett, is criti- 
cized by Reeve, Dom. Rel. 357 ; and in 
the case of The Druid, 1 Wm. Rob. 405, 
Dr. Lushington commented in forcible 
terms upon the hardship of the rule, and 
expressed regret at its adoption. — If a 
master give general directions which na- 
turally occasion the commission of a tort 
ny the servant executing them, the master 

is liable, notwithstanding he never com- 
manded that particular act. Rex v. Nutt, 
Fitzg. 47 ; Lord Tenterden, Rex v. Gutch, 
Mo. & M. 437, 438 ; Attorney-General v. 
Siddon, 1 Tyr. 49 ; Gregory v. Piper, 9 
B. & C. 591 ; Lord Lonsdale v. Little- 
dale, 2 H. Bl. 267, 299 ; Sly v. Edgley, 6 
Esp. 6 ; Holmes v. Onion, 2 C. B. n. s. 
790, In Bowles v. Hider, 6 E. & B. 208, 
the owner of a cab, plying in London, was 
held liable for goods lost by the negligence 
of the cab-driver, although the driver paid 
the owner every day a certain sum for the 
use of the cab and horses. And where 
the servamt is in the employ of the master, 
and the acts complained of are done in 
the course of the employment, the master 
is responsible, although the acts were done 
in a way directly contrary to his instruc- 
tions. Philadelpliia and Reading Rail- 
road !'. Derby, 14 How. 468 ; Southwick 
V. Estes, 7 Cush. 385. — But in cases 
where the master is held liable on the 
ground of an implied authority to the ser- 
vant to do the particular act for him, if 
the tort is a trespass on the part of the 
servant, the master must not be sued in 
trespass, but case. Gordon v. Rolt, 4 
Exch. 365 ; Shan-od v. London & N. West- 
ern Railway Co. 4 Exch. 580, s. c. 4 E. 
L. & E. 401, where a railway train, driven 
at the rate of forty miles an hour, accord- 
ing to the general directions of the com- 
pany to the driver, ran over and. killed 
some sheep which had strayed upon the 
line in consequence of the defective fences 
of the company. It appeared that if the 
driver (running the engine at the speed 
directed) had seen the sheep, he could not 
have stopped the train in time to prevent 
the collision. Held, that the company 
were not liable in trespass for the injury ; 
but that the action should have been case, 
eithei for permitting the fences to be out 
of rej air, or for directing the servant to 
drive at such a rate as to interfere with 
the right of the sheep to be on the railway. 
It was observed in the judgment, that, 
notwithstanding the order to the driver to 
proceed at a great speed, it did not follow 
as a necessary consequence that the engine 
would infringe on the plaintiff's cattle ; 
and the case was distinguished from Gre- 
gory V. Piper, 9 B. & C. 591, on this 


slight degree of actual control ; but of the soundness and gen- 
eral applicability of the principle itself, we do not doubt ; nor 
do we see any greater difficulty in the application of the prin- 
ciple than may always be apprehended from the variety and 
complexity of the facts to which this and other legal principles 
may be applied. The master is responsible for what is done 
by one who is his servant in fact, for the reason that he has 
such servant under his constant control, and may direct him 
from time to time as he sees fit ; and therefore the acts of the 
servant are the acts of the master, because the servant is at all 
times only an instrument ; and one is not liable for a person 
who is a servant only by construction, excepting so far as this 
essential element of control and direction exists between them. 
We should therefore say that, in the instances we have before 
supposed, the owner of the land or the house was not responsi- 
ble for the tort of the servant of the subcontractor, nor would 
he have been for the tort of the subcontractor or of the fii'st con- 
tractor. They were not his servants in any sense wh^-tever; 
they were to do a job, and when this was done he was to pay 
the party whom he had promised to pay ; and this was all. In 
accordance with this rule it is declared that where the negligent 
party exercises a distinct and independent calling, his employer 
is not liable, {d) and if the negligence be committed in the per- 
formance of a piece of work undertaken in consequence of a 
special contract, in such case the contractor is solely responsi- 
ble, (e) Nor does it make any difference if the contractor be, 
in matters beside the contract, the servant of the other conti'act- 
ing party. (/) And the party with whom the contractor en- 
gages is not liable, although acts are done by the contractor or 
his servants amounting to a public nuisance, so long as the act 
conti-acted for is not in itself a nuisance, [g) Yet if the act 
to be done be itself an unlawful one, or necessarily involves in 
its performance the commission of a public nuisance, the em- 
ployer is not discharged from liability on the ground that the 

(fl) MilUgan V. Wedge, 12 A. & E. [f) Kaiglit «. Fox, 5 Exch. 72, 1 E.L. 

737 ; Martin v. Tcmpcrley, 4 Q. B. 298 ; & B. 477. 

De Forest v. Wiiglit, 2 Mich. 368 ; Pierce (g) Overton v. Freeman, 3 Car. & K 

,: O'Keefe, 11 Wis. ISO. 49, s. c. 8 E. L. & E. 479. 

(e) Allen v. Hayward, 7 Q. B. 960; 
Gayford v. N-choUs, 9 Exch. 702. 

CH v.] 



party employed was a contractor, because in such case he has 
sufficient control, and expressly commands the act to be done, (h) 
Some exceptions seem to be made on the ground of public pol- 
icy, although the case could hai'dly come within the law or rea- 
son of nuisance ; as where railroads have their work done by 
contract, and are yet held liable, (i) So, too, a distinction seems 
to be taken between an injury caused by the manner of doing 
a work, and one caused by the work itself. As, for example, a 

(A) Peachey v. Rowland, 16 E. L. & E. 
442 ; Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Consumers 
Co. 22 E. L. &E. 198. — It is a conse- 
quence from the principles stated in the 
text, that if a ■contractor himself employ 
a servant, he and not the original em- 
ployer is liable for the conduct of that 
Bci-vant. And the general employer does 
not become liable even if ho have a de- 
gree of control over the servant, and the 
power of removal, provided this authority 
is not so extensive as in effect to render 
the servant no longer the contractor's ser- 
vant. Where a company, empowered by 
act of parliament to construct a railway 
contracted with certain persons to make 
a portion of the line, and by the contract 
reserved to themselves the power of dis- 
missing any of the contractor's workmen 
for incompetence ; and the workmen, in 
constructing a bridge over a public high- 
way, negligently caused the dcatli of a 
person passing beneath the highway, by 
allowing a stone to fall upon him : — Held, 
in an action against the company, upon 
Stat. '9 & 10 Vict. c. 93, by the adminis- 
tratrix of the deceased, that tliey were not 
liable; and that the terms of the contract 
in question did not make any .difference. 
Eeedie v. London & North Western Rail- 
way Co. 4 Exch. 244. 

Yet a man is none the less liable for the 
negligence of his own seiTauts because 
they were not directly employed by him, 
but mediately, througli the intervention of 
another, whom he has authorized to ap- 
point servants for him. And Littledale, 
J., in the able opinion so much cited, in- 
stances several cases where the liability 
exists, although the master has neither the 
direct appointment nor the superintend- 
ence of the servants ; as the liability of a 
ship-owner for the crew selected and gov- 
erned by the master; of the owner of a 
farm, who conducts its operations through 
a bailiff, for the inferior working men 
hired by the bailiff; and of the owner of 
a mine for the workmen employed by his 

steward, and paid by him on behalf of the 
master. To which may be added the lia- 
bility of the owner of a chartered ship for 
the negligence of the crew while under the 
immediate direction of the charterer. See 
Fenton v. Dublin Steam Packet Co. 8 
A. & E. 835. The following convenient 
tests for ascertaining in a particular case 
whether a certain person was the master 
of tlie servants in question, are suggested 
by Coleridge, J., 7 Jur. 152: Had he the 
power of selecting them 1 — was he the 
party to pay them 7 — were they doing his 
work t — were they doing that work under 
his control in the ordinary way 'i — Where 
the other elements of liability exist, it is 
no defence that the master, voluntarily 
performing part of his work by means of 
servants, was obliged by law to take those 
servants from a proscribed class. Whether 
he would be liable where the law abso- 
lutely forbade him to do that part of his 
business himself, and still allowed him to 
select out of a class moi'e or less numer- 
ous, is perhaps unsettled, but the proba- 
bility is he would still be held. Where 
there is this personal prohibition, and also 
an obligation by law to take a pai-ticular 
individual, and thus no liberty of choice 
whatever is permitted, it seems the mas- 
ter's liability ceases. See Martin v, Tem- 
perloy, 7 Jur. 150, 4 Q. B. 298; The 
Agricola, 2 Wm. Eob. 10; The Maria, 1 
Wm. Rob. 95 ; Lucy v. Ingram, 6 M. & 
W. 302 ; Yates v. Brown, 8 Pick. 23 , 
Stone V. Codman, 15 Pick. 297 ; Lowell 
V. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 23 Pick. 
24 ; Sproul v. Hemingway, 14, Pick. 1 ; 
Ruffin, C. J., in Wiswall «. Brinson, 10 
Ii-ed. L. 563; Blake v. Ferris, 1 Seld. 
48; Stevens v. Armstrong, 2 id. 435, 1 
Jur. N. s. Pt. 2, 425 ; Kelley v. The May- 
or, &c., of New York,' 1 Kern. 432. 

{{) See some of the cases cited in pre- 
ceding note, and Mayor of New York v 
Bailey, 2 Denio, 445 ; Hilliard v. Rich 
ardson, 3 Gray, 352. 



[book L 

municipal corporation building a sewer, would not be liable for 
the negligent act of a workman employed by the contractor 
but would be liable for an accident caused by the sewer be- 
ing left open at night, and improperly lighted and guard- 
ed, {j) If the contracting party employs persons to do the 
work, not on a contract, but on day's wages, he would still 
retain the power of directing them from day to day in their 
work ; and this might render him liable. But we should still 
hold that if the work done at day wages were such as to carry 
with it no implication or probability of actual supervision or 
control, and none such were proved in fact, the employer would 
not be liable. For the same reason we should say that the 
owner and letter of a coach, horses, and coachman, was or was 
not responsible to one injured by the negligence of the coach- 
man, as the terms of the hiring and the circumstances of the 
case led to the conclusion that the coachman was or was not at 
the time of the negligence the servant of the owner or of the hirer 
of the coach, [k) The owner might doubtless be held respon- 

(./) Storrs V. City of Utica, 17 N. Y. 104. 
This case tlu'ows some doubt on Blake v. 
Fenis, 1 Sekl. 48. 

(k) A party who is not the general 
master of a servant may make him his 
servant in a particular transaction, by 
specially directing him thereto, or by a 
subsequent adoption of what he has done ; 
and in this way a special liability may be 
incurred. And in Quarmanv. Burnett, 6 
M. & W. 508, the owners of the carriage 
having provided the driver with a livery 
which he left at their house at the end of 
eacli drive, and the injury in question be- 
ing occasioned by his leaving the horses 
while so depositing the livery in their 
house, tlie court acknowledged that if it 
had appeared tliat the coachman went 
into the liouso to leave his lively on that 
occasion under a special order of the 
owners, or under a general order to do 
60 at all times, without leaving any one 
at the horses' heads, a liability would 
have been incun-ed. In the course of 
the judgment, Baron Parke observed : 
"It is undoubtedly true that there may 
be special circumstances which may ren- 
der the hirer of job-horses and servants 
responsible for the neglect of a servant, 
though not liable by virtue of the gen- 
eral relation of master and sen'aut. He 

may become so by his own conduct, as 
by taking the actual management of the 
horses, or ordering the servant to drive 
in a particular manner, whicli occasions 
the damage complained of, or to absent 
himself at one particular moment, and 
the like." Sec also. Burgess v. Gray, 1 
C. B. 578. — AVhere question is not made 
of the fact of service, but simply wliether 
it is a service of ihat partij whom it is 
attempted to charge — there can be no 
doubt tliat tlie servant cannot have, with 
respect to the same act of service, two 
unconnected masters. Two persons may 
be joint masters, and thereby subject to 
a joint liability ; and such joint Habihty 
may be converted into a several one by 
the election of the plaintiff to sue one 
separately — which the law allows to be 
done in actions of tort ; but " two persons 
cannot be made separately liable at the 
election of the party suing, unless in 
cases where they would be jointly liable." 
Littiedale, J., Laugher v. Pointer, 5 B. & 
C. 559. This principle serves as a test 
in that difficult class of cases where the 
negligent servant seems to be in some 
respects in the employment of one party, 
and in some respects in that of another. 
In such a case, as soon as it is ascertained 
that, as tc the transaction in question, he 

en. v.] SERVANTS. 107 

sible to the hirer, if the injured party compelled him to make 
compensation, and it could be shown that the owner had 
knowingly employed an insufficient and dangerous servant, 
for this would be only to hold him responsible for his own 
negligence. The rule we have given would not require the 
tort to be committed in the master's presence in order to hold 
him responsible. It is enough if, when the tort was committed, 
the wrongdoer was in the service of the master, and was then 
acting as his servant. And this question has been held to be 
a question of fact for the jury. (Z) K, however, the servant, 
when doing the wrong, was employed in the service of the 
master, it is no defence for the master, that he was also, and 
in some degree, acting in his own business, (m) 

There seems to be some extension of the responsibility of the 
master, when the work, in the doing of which the injurious 
negligence occun-ed, related to real estate ; on the ground that 
the owner of such property is bound to be careful how his use 
of it, or acts in relation to it, affect third parties or the public ; 
but the limits of this extension are not well settled. If it have 
any foundation whatever, it must rest upon the maxim sic utere 
tuo ut alienum non Imdas, which, while it imposes a certain 
restriction upon the use of aU property, may be held perhaps 
to apply more especially to lands ; and whoever permits any 
thing to be done upon his ground, to the positive damage 

.8 the servant of either one, it follows we do not think he ceases to be so by 
immediately that ho cannot be regarded reason of the owner of the carnage pre- 
as the servant of the other, who therefore ferring to be driven by that particular 
is not liable for his negligence. Hence servant, where there is a choice amongst 
in the great case of Laugher v. Pointer, more, any more than a hack post-boy 
5 B. & C. 547, it was held by Abbott, C. ceases to be the servant of an innkeeper, 
J., and Littledale, Jr. (whose opinion has where a traveller has a particular prefer- 
since been authoritatively approved), in ence of one over the rest, on account of 
opposition to the view of Bayley and his sobriety and carefulness. If, indeed, 
Holrogd, 33., that where the owner of a the defendants had insisted upon the 
carriage hired of a stable-keeper -a. pair horses being driven, not by one of the 
of horses to draw it for a day, and the regular servants, but by a stranger to the 
owner of the horses provided a driver, job-master, appointed by themselves, it 
through whose negligent driving an in- would have made all tbe difference." See 
jury was done to a horse belonging to also Quarman v. Burnett, 6 M, & W. 508 ; 
a third person, the owner of the carriage Stevens v. Armstrong, 2 Seld. 435 ; Dal- 
was not liable to be sued for such injury, yell v. Tyrer, 96 Eng. C. L. 899. 
And the case is not affected though the {I) Per Lord Abinger, at nisi prius, 
owners of the carriage asked for that Brady v. Giles, 1 Mo. & R. 494. 
particular servant among many. "If the (m) Patten v. Kea,.2 C. & B. 605. 
driver be the servant of the job- master. 



[rooK I. 

of another, may be responsible for the nuisance. Thus it has 
been decided that one who has directed his servant to remove 
snow and ice from the roof of his house, is responsible for an 
injury received by a passer, whether the negligence was that 
of the servant or of a stranger employed by the latter or of one 
who volunteered to assist him. (n) This duty, however, cannot 
extend so far as to oblige the owner of land to see to it in all 
cases that a nuisance is not erected thereon. The measure of 
his responsibihty must be his reasonable power of control ; and 
therefore it should be sufficient for his exculpation, that he 
never, either expressly or impliedly, sanctioned the nuisance. 
But if he let his land with a nuisance upon it, he would, on the 
same principle, be liable for its continuance, as well as for its 
erection, although he had reserved to himself no right to enter 
upon the land and abate the nuisance. And so if he let land 
for a particular use which must result in a nuisance, he should 
perhaps be liable therefor, (o) But the general doctrine, that the 
owner of fixed property was liable for injury caused by mis- 
management thereof by any one, in a manner quite distinct 
from that in which the owner of a chattel would be held, 
although once in much favor, (p) is now quite often disre- 
garded, (q) 

(n) Althorfe v. Wolfe, 22 N. T. (8 
Smith), 355. ' 

(o) Sec Rich V. Bastei-field, 4 C. B. 
783 ; Ecx v. Pedley, 1 A. & E. 822, 
3 Nev. & M. 627 ; Fish v. Dodge, 4 De- 
nio, 311; Carle v. Hall, 2 Mot. 353. 
And pos.siblY tliis doctrine may eiittr into 
the decision in Burgess u. Gray, 1 C. B. 
578, above referred to. 

(p) Littledale, J., Laugher v. Pointer, 
5 B. & C. 560 ; Quarman v. Burnett, 6 
M. & W. 510. 

((/) See Allen v. Hayward, 7 Q. B. 
960 ; and in Reedie v. London and North 
Western Railway Co., 4 Exch. 244, this 
doctrine was expressly overruled. There 
liolfe, B., giving the judgment said : " On 
full consideration, we have come to the 
conclusion, that there is no such distinc- 
tion, unless perhaps the act complained 
of is such as to amount to a nuisance. 

_ . It is not necessary to decide 

whether in any case the owner of real 
property, such as land or houses, may be 
responsible for nuisances occasioned by 

the mode in which his property is used 
by others not standing in the relation 
of servants to him, or part of his family. 
It may be that in some cases he is so 
responsible. Birt then, his liability must 
be founded on the principle that he has 
not taken due care to prevent the doing 
of acts which it was his duty to prevent, 
whether done by his servants or othera. 
If, for instance, a person occupying a 
house or a field should permit another 
to cany on there a noxious ti-ado, so as 
to be a nuisance to liis neighbors, it may 
be that he would be responsible, though 
the acts complained of were neither his 
acts nor the acts of his seiwants. He 
would have violated the rule of law, ' Sic 
utere tuo id alienum non Icedas.' " Bush y. 
Steinman, 1 B. & P. 404 ; Randlcson v. 
Mun-ay, 8 A. & E. 109, and other cases 
of that class, must be regarded as sub- 
stantially overruled ; and such American 
decisions as were made before the recent 
investigations, in deference to those cases, 
will not, it is presumed, be adhered to. 


Of the general principles of the law of contracts, applicable 
to the contract of service, we have already considered some 
nnder the head of Agency ; and we shall defer the consideration 
of others, and of the questions which they present, to the third 
Book of this Part, which relates to the subject-matter of con- 
tracts, and to the chapter upon the topic of the Hiring of Per- 
sonal Service. 

De Forrest v. Wright, 2 Mich. 368. See, current of recent Enghsh decisions. See 

however, The Mayor, &c., of New Yorlc v. also, Lowell v. Boston and Lowell K. R. 

Bailey, 2 Denio, 433 ; and City of Buffalo Co. 23 Pick. 24 ; Gardner v. Heartt, 3 

V. HoUoway, 14 Barb. 101; cases which Barb. 165; Stone v. Codman, 15 Pick. 

it seems difficult to reconcile with the 297. 



[hook I. 



Attorneys are made so by a letter or power of attorney, (a) 
or they are Attorneys of Record. 

It is a general rule, that one acting under a power of attor- 
ney, cannot execute for his principal a sealed instrument, unless 
the power of attorney be sealed, (b) And where a statute pre- 

(a) "Few persons are disabled to be 
private attorneys to deliver seizin ; for 
monks, infants, femes covert, persons at- 
tainted, outlawed, excommunicated, vil- 
lains, aliens, &c., may be attorneys. A 
feme may be an attorney to deliver seizin 
to her husband, and the husband to the 
wife." Co. Lit. 52 a. An infant cannot 
execute a power coupled with an interest. 
Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 695, 714. 

{b) Harrison v. Jackson, 7 T. R. 209 ; 
Elliot V. Davis, 2 B. &. P. 338 ; Berkeley 
V. Hardy, 5 B. & C. 355 ; Stetson v. I'at- 
ton, 2 Greenl. 358. — If a partner seal for 
himself and copartner, m tlie presence of 
the copartner, it is sufficient, though his 
authority be only by parol. Ball v. Dun- 
sterville, 4 T. R. 313.— In Brutton o. 
Burton, 1 Chitt. 707, it was held that a 
warrant of attorney under seal, executed 
. by one person for himself and partner in 
tlie absence of the latter, but with his con- 
sent, w;is a sufficient authority for signing 
judgment against both ; on the ground 
that a warrant of attorney to confess judg- 
ment need uot be under seal. — And Hun- 
ter !'. Parker, 7 ]M. & W. 322. contains 
another application of the same equitable 
and reasonalde principle. Compare Bau- 
orgee v. Hovcy, 5 iVIass. 11, 24. — An in- 
strument to which the agent of a corpora- 
tion has affixed his seal, may be evidence 
of the contract in an action of assumpsit 
against the corporation ; for the seal of the 
agent of a corporation, unlike that of the 
agent of a natural person, never can be 
the seal of his principal. Randall v. Van 
Vechten, 19 Johns. 60; Damon v. In- 

habitants of Granby, 2 Pick. 345 ; Bank 
of Columbia v. Patterson's Admr. 7 
Cranch, 299. But see Bank of Middle- 
bmy V. Rut. & W. R. R., 30 Vt. 159.— 
There is a class of Partnership cases, in 
which it has been held that any express 
ratification though parol, by a partner of a 
contract under seal entered into for the finn 
by his copartner makes the instrument the 
deed of the firm. Darst v. Roth, 4 Wash. 
C. C. 471 ; Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 
Johns. 285 ; Drumright o. Philpot, 15 
Geo. 424. — The' dicta of several Judges 
have extended this exception to include 
an original parole authority. See Skinner 
y. Dayton, 19 Johns. 513, where the de- 
cision seems to be too broadly stated in 
the reporter's note. Some decisions also 
go to tills extent, as Gram v. Seton, 1 
Hall, .262.— In Cady v. Shepherd, 11 
Pick. 400, the cases are reviewed, and 
among others Brutton v. Burton, 1 Chitt. 
707 (see supra), the decision in which it 
is stated nakedly, without the addition of 
the reason by which the Court of Queen's 
Bench appear to have been governed, and 
which goes to reconcile it with the author- 
ities. McDonald & i\Xills v. Eggleston, 
Barker & Co., 26 Vt. 156, is also to the 
same effect. And see Hunter v. Parker, 
7 M. & W, 331, 332, 344 ; Price v. Alex- 
ander, 2 Greene (Iowa), 427. Cady v. 
Shepherd, and McDonald & Mills v. Eg- 
gleston, Barker & Co., however, must bo 
taken to decide the law for Massachusetts 
and Vermont to be, that a partner may 
bind his copartner by a contract under 
seal, made in the name and for the 'use of 


scribes certain formalities, and makes them requisite for the 
execution of an instrument, a power to make that instrument 
must, in general, be itself executed with similar formalities, (c) 
But as oral or written powers are equally parol, one by oral 
authority may sign the name of his principal without a seal 
thereto ; and so he may be authorized orally to bind his princi- 
pal by written contracts, where the statute of frauds requires a 
writing signed by the parties sought to be charged, as the foun- 
dation of an action, (d) 

The effect of a written authority in limiting the power of an 
attorney precisely within what is written, may be illustrated by 
the execution of a deed by one person for another. If a grantor 
requests a person in his presence to sign for him his (the gran- 
tor's) name to a deed, and the person thus requested writes the 
name of the grantor without writing his own, or adding any 
words to indicate that the grantor acted by attorney, this would 
seem to be nevertheless the signature of the grantor, and the 
deed would be valid. But if the grantor has given to A a 
power of attorney in the ordinary form, authorizing hira to exe- 
cute a deed for him as his attorney, and this person writes the 

the finn, in the course of the partnership Blood v. Goodrich, 12 Wend. 525, 9 

business, provided the copartner assents Wend. 68; Brafcg v. Fessenden, 11 111. 

to the contract previously to its execution, 544. And besides, on the docti-ine of 

or afterwards ratifies and adopts it ; and estoppel, a principal, by admitting that to 

this assent or adoption may be by parol, be his deed which was executed by his 

Whether the doctrine of these cases is to agent, might be held to have disabled 

be extended to other than partnership himself to say that the agent was not dulj 

cases, is open to doubt ; the probability is authorized. As yet, however, the law 

that it will not. It is worthy of notice, in must certainly be taken to be, that even a 

the absence of clear and consistent adjudi- parole ratification does not make an instru 

cation, that parol ratification, though fre- . ment under seal, executed bj an agent • 

quently confounded in the cases with an who had not an authority under seal, the 

original parol authority, stands on quite a deed of the principal. Where, however, 

different footing and may be defended by a partner makes a mortgage of personal 

reasons which do not apply to the other, property in the name of the firm and seals 

It is delivery that completes the deed, and it, the seal being unnecesary, the mort- 

a subsequent parole assent, or contem- gage binds the firm. Milton v. Mosher, 

poraneous parole assent, may amount to 7 Met. 244 ; see also, ante, page 52, 

delivery, though a prewous assent, by the note (m). 

nature of things, as well as by common (c) Gage v. Gage, 10 Foster (N. H;, 

law never can. The deed must exist 420 ; Clark v. Graham, 6 Wheat. 577. 
before it can be delivered ; and it may be (d) Shaw v. Nudd, 8 Pick. 9 ; Coles v 

delivered at any time afiei- it once does Trecothick, 9 Ves. 2.34 ; Clinen v. Cooke, 

exist in a complete form. See Byers v. 1 Seh. & L. 22 ; McComb v. Wright, 4 

McClanahan, 6 G. & J. 250 ; Parke, B., Johns. Ch. 659 ; Graham v. Musson, 5 

Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 6 M. & W. 215, Bing. N. C. 607. 
citing Hudson v Eovett, 5 Bing. 36,8; 



[book i 

name of the grantor in his absence, without saying "by A, 
his attorney," or writing his own name ; this would not seem 
to be a sufficient execution of the deed. Because A had no 
other power to act for the gi-antor than that which the letter of 
attorney gave him ; and that did not give him any other power 
than to act as the grantor's attorney ; that is, to sign the deed 
himself, declaring that the grantor signed it by him. In the 
first case, evidence is admissible to show the authority under 
which the signature was made ; and when this exhibits the 
grantor as present, and as authorizing the signature made in 
that way, then it becomes the signature of the grantor made 
by another hand than his own. But in executing a deed by 
attorney, the power being delegated to the attorney is with him, 
and the deed takes effect from his act ; and therefore the instru- 
ment which gives the power is to be strictly examined and 
construed, (e) 

( e ) This point, upon which there 
seems to be no express decision, arose in 
the case of Wood v. Goodridge, 6 Cush. 
117. This was the case of a mortgage 
deed and note made under a power of 
attorney under seal, by simply signing 
the name of the principal opposite to a 
seal, in the case of the deed, and in the 
case of the note, by simply writing the 
principal's name at the foot. It was not 
necessary to decide the point, the court 
being of opinion that the power though 
Tery general in its terms, did not confer 
authority to mortgage, nor to borrow 
money and bind the principal by a prom- 
issory note. But the question of the 
manner of execution was much considered, 
and the court, per Fklcher, J,, signified 
an inclination to hold, that where an 
attorney signs the name of his principal 
to an instrument which contains nothing 
to indicate that it is executed by attorney, 
and without adding his own signature as 
such, it is not a valid execution. — A 
deed was signed in the presence and by 
the direction of F. G. (and in the presence 
of an attesting witness), thus : " V. G. by 
M. G. G." It was objected that M. G. 
G., signing in that manner for the prin- 
cipal, should have had a power under 
seal ; but the deed was held valid. Gard- 
ner V. Gardner, .5 Cush. 483. In deliver- 
ing the judgment in this case, <S/ia«;, C. 
J., said : " The name being written by 

another hand, in the presence of the 
grantor, and at her request, is her act. 
The disposing capacity, the act of mind, 
which are the essential and efficient in- 
gredients of the deed, are hers ; and she 
merely uses the hand of another, through 
incapacity or weakness, instead of her 
own, to do the i)hysical act of making a 
written sign. Whereas, in executing a 
deed by attorney, the disposing power, 
though delegated, is with the attorney, 
and tlie deed takes effect from his act; 
and therefore the power is to be strictly 
examined and construed." — Perhaps it 
will still be regarded as an open question 
whether the simple signing of the prin- 
cipal's name, without evidence on the 
face of the instrument that the execution 
is by an agent, may not be sufficient. 
From a passage in Dixon on Title Deeds, 
vol. ii. p. 533, it may be inferred that the 
author's view is similar to that now taken 
by the Supremo Court of Massachusetts. 
On the other hand the books contain 
numerous intimations that it has not gen- 
erally been supposed, heretofore, that any 
other form is necessary to the valid execu- 
tion of a deed by attorney than is requisite 
when the principal makes a deed in his 
proper person. See 1 Prest. Abstr. 2d 
ed. 293, 294 ; Smith, iVIer. Law, B. I. ch. 
5, § 4; Wilks o. Back, 2 East, 142, 145; 
Elliot V. Davis, 2 B. & P. 338 ; Bac. Abr. 
Leases, J. § 10 ; also, Hanson v. Rowe, 6 

CH. TI.] 



An attorney of record, more commonly called an attorney at 
law, is one who has been duly admitted by comjfetent authority 
to practice in the courts. An attorney at law, by his admission 
as such, acquires rights of which he cannot be deprived at the 
mere discretion of a court. (/) Such an attorney need not prove 
his authority to appear for any party in court, and act for Jiim 
there, unless his authority be denied, and some evidence be 
offered tending to show that he has no such authority, {g) But 

Foster (N. H.), 327. It seems the better 
opinion that, even since the Statute of 
Frauds, a signing is not essential to a deed. 
Avcline v. Whisson, 4 Man. & G. 801 ; 
Cherry v. Homing, 4 Exch. 631 ; Shep. 
Touch, by Preston, 56, n. If this be so, it 
may be considered going veiy far to hold 
that the addition of the name of the prin- 
cipal, by the hand of an authorized attor- 
ney, invalidates an instrument which 
would have been perfectly good without 
any signature at all. In some States 
the Statutes of Conveyance modify the 
common law in this particular, and re- 
quire signing as well as the affixing of 
a seal. With respect to instruments not 
under seal, the opinion seems equally to 
have prevailed that an authority to sign 
for a principal is well executed by the 
mere subscription of the principal's name. 
Chitty on Bills, 9th ed., 33 ; Byles on 
Bills, 6th ed., 26. — An auctioneer or 
auctioneer's clerk performs his implied au- 
thority by simply writing the purchaser's 
name in the memorandum of sale. Bird 
V. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 443. This indeed 
is of no great weight in itself, since that 
case might be viewed as falling within 
the class expressly distinguished by the 
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, namely, 
where the signature is made in the presence 
of the principal, and by his immediate 
direction : yet there is a case of White v. 
Proctor, 4 Taunt. 209, where the objection 
was expressly taken that the name of the 
auctioneer ought to appear as well as that 
of the purchaser. 'There Best, Sergeant, 
referring to Emerson v. Helis, 2 'Taunt. 
38, said that in that case the auctioneer 
wrote his own name in the heading of the 
paper, and that the decision was given on 
that ground. But Mansfield, C. J., replied : 
"In that case there was no argument 
upon the circumstance that the auctioneer 
had signed, nor was the case at all decided 

VOL. I. 8 

upon that ground : his saying ' sold hj John 
Wright,' did not make him agent for the 
buyer ; the only question was whether his 
signing the purchaser's name was done by 
him as agent for the purchaser." The 
power of one partner to bind the fii-m by a 
note or bill has been referred to principles 
of agency ; and it is well established that 
the signature of the firm name without 
more is a complete execution. See, Nor- 
ton V. Seymour, 3 C.jB. 792; Kirk v. 
Blurton, 9 M. & W. 284. — Watkins v. 
Vince, 2 Stark. 368, though meagrely 
reported, seems to be a case where Lord 
Ellenborough entertained no doubt that 
the signing of the principal's name, by an 
agent having authority to contract in his 
behalf, was a sufficient signature. And see 
Helmsley v. Loader, 2 Camp. 450, which 
is somewhat more explicit. 

(/) Fletcher v. Daingerfield, 20 Cal. 

(g) Osbom u. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 
738, 830 ; where tliis rule of evidence was 
applied in the case of an attorney assum- 
ing to act in behalf of a corporation. See 
also, Jackson v. Stewart, 6 Johns. 34 ; 
Denton v. Noyes, id. 296 ; Hardin v. 
Hoyoponubby's Lessee, 27 Miss. 567 ; 
Henck v. Todhunter, 7 Har. & J. 275 ; 
Huston, J., Lynch v. Commonwealth, 16 
S. & E. 369 ; Woodbury, J., Eastman v. 
Coos Bank, 1 N. H. 23 ; ' Manchester Bank 
v. Fellows, 8 Foster (N. H.), 302. — The 
authority from the client need not in gen- 
eral be in writing ; yet an oral authority 
to appear in a cause is not sufficient to 
enable the attorney to release the interest 
of a witness. Murray v. House, 1 1 Johns. 
464. As to the evidence required to sup- 
port a claim for services rendered by an 
attorney to his client, see Burghart v. 
Gardner, 3 Barb. 64 ; Wilson w. Wilson, 
1 Jae. & W. 457. — Solicitor is the legal 
designation of one who fills the place in a 



[book I. 

a person who is not an attorney at law, and who offers to ap- 
pear for another in court, by special authority, must prove such 
authority if requested, (h) 

An attorney who places his client's money in the hands of 
his own banker, on his own private account, though he does this 
bond fide, and has money of his own in the hands of the same 
banker, is liable for the loss thereof by the bankruptcy of the 
banker, (i) But it seems that he is not liable if he deposits 
the money as the property of the owner, and opens a special 
account specifying whose it is. (j) His implied duty to use 
reasonable skiU, care, &c., is the same as that of other persons 
to whose care and skill any thing is intrusted ; which wiU be 
spoken of hereafter, (k) He is not responsible for mistake in a 
doubtful point of law, (I) or of practice, (m) nor for the fault 
of counsel retained by him. (w) He is liable for disclosing 
privileged communications, (o) K discharged by one party, 

court of equity corresponding to that of 
an attorney in a court of law. Maugham, 
c. 1, §1. 

(/j) Marshall, C. J., Osbom >/. tJ. S. 
Bank, 9 Wheat. 829. 

(i) Roliinsou v. Ward, 2 C. & P. 59. 

[j) Abbott, C. J. Robinson v. Ward, 2 
C. & P. 60. 

{k) Pitt 1'. Yiilden, 4 Burr. 2060 ; Baikie 
K. Chandless, 3 Camp, 17, 19; Siiilcock 
V. Passman,? C. &P. 289; Godefroy v. 
Dalton, 6 Bing. 460 ; Meggs v. Binns, 2 
Bing. N. C. 625 ; Lynch v. Common- 
wealth, 16 S. & R. 368; De.irborn o. 
Dearborn, 15 Mass. 316; Varnum v. 
Martin, 15 Pick. 440; Wilson v. CofHn, 
2 Cush. 316 ; Cooper v. Stevenson, 12 E. 
L. & E. 403; Parker v. Rolls, 28 id. 424. 
.See ante, p. 84, note (r). See for a full 
discussion of duties of counsel, Swinfen u. 
Lord Chelmsfi.r.l, 5 H. & N. 890. 

(/) Kemp V. Burt, 4 B. & Ad. 424, a. 
c. 1 Ncv. & M. 262 ; Elkington v. Hol- 
land, 9 M. & W. 659 ; Pitt v. Yalden, 4 
Bun-. 2060. 

(w) Laidler v. Elliott, 3 B. & C. 738. 

\n) Lowry v. Guilford, 5 C. & P. 234. 
— Yet an attorney cannot by consulting 
his counsel, shift from himself the respon- 
sibility of a matter presumed by the law 
to lie within his own knowledge. Tindal, 
C. J., Godefroy v. Dalton, 4 Mo. & P. 
149, s. c. 6 Bing. 460. 

(o) And his liability is not removed by 

the fact that he was previously retained 
for the party to whom the disclosures 
were made, and that his employer knew 
of that former retainer. Taylor v. Black- 
low, 3 Bing. N. C. 235. In Thomas v. 
Rawlings, 27 Beav. 140, a solicitor de- 
clined answering on the ground that he had 
obtained his information while acting as 
the solicitor of his co-defendant, — ■ Held, 
that he had not brought himself within ' 
the rule as to professional privilege. His 
reply that he liad obtained his information 
" either as a creditor or as the solicitor " of 
his client was taken most strangely against 
the solicitor ; and he was held bound to give 
the discovery. In Hall v. Renfro, 3 Met. 
(Ivy.), 51, it is held an attorney is a 
competent witness for or against liis client 
in all cases except concerning any com- 
munication made to him by his client in 
that relation, or his advice thereon ; and in 
this with the client's consent. Such com- 
munications to be privileged must have 
been addressed to the attorney in his pro- 
fessional character with a view to legal ad- 
vice which, as an attorney, it was his duty 
to give. Borum v. Fouts, et ah, 15 Ind. 
50. See also, Shaugncssy v. Fogg, 15 La. 
An. 330. But in King v. Ban-ett, 1 1 Ohio 
St. 261, it was held that if a party to a 
suit offers himself as a witness and gives 
evidence generally in a case, he thereby 
loses the privilege, and under the code of 
civil procedure consents to the examina 


he may act for an opposite party, provided he makes no im- 
proper use of knowledge obtained by him while acting for the 
first party, (p) But it seems that he may not act for an opposite 
party if discharged by his first client for misconduct, (q) 

The law implies a contract on the part of the client, to pay 
his attorney the legal fees, or statute rate of compensation, (r) 
And if the client asserts that the services were to be rendered 
for a less compensation, the burden rests on him to prove this 
bargain. (5) If a bargain be proved, the attorney cannot re- 
cover more by showing that his services were worth more, (t) 
And even if he shows that the case was deemed, with good 
reason, a desperate one, this will not sustain his claim for an 
excessive compensation, as half the sum recovered, (u) If, 
during the suit, an attorney make a contract with his client, 
which is void for champerty, he may stiU recover a proper com- 
pensation for services rendered before the illegal bargain, (v) 

An attorney cannot maintain an action for compensation for 
services, merely by proof that the services were rendered ; but 
must go farther and show that they were requested, or, in other 
words, that he was retained as attorney or counsel, (w) And 
his own pocket or office docket book, in which he has entered 

tion of his attorney touching such admis- Marriott, 4 Tyr. 78, where the court re- 
gions as are pertinent to the issue. In De fused to restrain an attorney, who, (with- 
Wolf K. Strader, 26 111. 225, it is said that out his misconduct) had been dismissed 
a retainer or fee paid is necessary to con- from the employment of the plaintiffs, 
stitute the relation of attorney and cli- from acting for the defendant, the judges 
ent, and that an attorney who is requested rested their decision on the ground that 
to prepare a deed or mortgage, no legal there was no affidavit by the plaintiffs 
advise being requured, is not privileged. that the attorney, while in then- employ- 
(p) Bricheno v. Thorp. 1 Jac. 300. — ment, had obtained a confidential knowl- 
It is not clear, however, if it be distinctly edge of particular facts, which it would be 
shown that confidential disclosures have prejudicial to their case to communicate 
been made to the attorney or solicitor, to the defendant. 

which if communicated to the other party {q) Lord Eldon, Cholmondeley v. Clin ' 

must be durectly prejudicial to the former ton, 19 Ves. 261 ; Gumey, B., Johnson v. 

client, that a court of equity would not Marriott, 4 Tyr. 78. 

forbid the acceptance of the second re- (r) Brady v. Mayor, &c. 1 Sandf. 569. 

tainer, although the attorney was dis- (si Brady v. Mayor, &c. 1 Sandf. 569. 

missed for no misconduct. Lord Eldon, (() Coopwood v. Wallace, 12 Ala. 

Bricheno v. Thorp, 1 Jac. 303, 304 ; 790. 

Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 19 Ves. 261, iu) Christy «. Douglas, Wright, 485. 

275. In the latter case Lord Eldon said: (w) Thurston v. Percival, 1 Pick. 415 ; 

"My opinion is that he [the attorney] Rust u. Larue, 4 Litt. 417; Caldwell v 

ought not, if he knows any thing that Shepherd, 6 Monr. 392 ; Smith v. Thomp 

may be prejudicial to the former client, to son, 7 B. Mon. 305. 

accept the new brief, though that client (w) Bnrghatt v. Gardner, 3 Barb. 64. 
refuse to retain him." — Ei Johnson v. 


the name of the suit and the parties in question, is not of itself 
evidence that the services were either requested or rendered, (x) 

An attorney cannot recover his bill against his client, if his 
client has received no benefit whatever from his services by 
reason of his want of care and skUl. («/) But if the client has 
received any benefit, he must in England pay the bill, and may 
then have an action for damages, (z) It has been there held, 
however, that a jury may discriminate between the several 
Hems in an account, and reject those for work entirely use- 
less ; («) and it may be supposed, that in America the client 
might reduce the attorney's claim by showing the Kttle value 
of the benefit received, as in actions for other services. 

An attorney has a lien on the judgment he recovers, and on 
the papers of the case, for his costs and fees, (b) In most of 
our States this rule applies to barristers, counsellors, and attor- 
neys equally. But it has been said that an attorney's lien covers 
only his costs and expenses, and his fees as attorney, but not 
his fees as counsellor, nor incidental expenses not taxable, (c) 
We are not sure that this is law. The Hen of an attorney, its 
extent and its limitations, are considered more fuEy in our chap- 
ter on Liens. 

An attorney is, in general, personally liable on an agreement 
made by him in his own name, although only professionally 
concerned in the matter, (d) 

(x) Brip;gs 11. Georgia, 15 Vt. 61. for any general balance dne him. Den- 

(y) Huntly u. BuUver, 6 Bing. N. C nett y. Cutts, 11 N. H. 163 ; Walker v. 

11 i ; Bracey v. Carter, 12 A. & E. 373 ; Sargent, U Vt. 247 ; Aliler in Pennsylva- 

Hill V. Eeatlierstonhaugh, 7 Bing. 569 ; nia. Walton v. Dickerson, 7 Barr, 376. 

Hopping V. Quin, 12 Wend. 517. See So by statute in many States he has a Hen 

Eunyan y. Nichols, II Johns. 547. upon a judgment actually recoYered in 

{z) Templer v. McLachlan, 2 B. & P. favor of his client, for his fees and dis- 

,136. bursements. Diinblee w. Locke, 13 Mass. 

(a) Shaw V. Arden, 9 Bing. 289. 525 ; Potter v. Jlayo, 3 Greenl. 34; Gam- 

(6) Jilooncy v. Lloyd, 5 S. & E. 412. mon i'. Chandlerj 30 Me. 152 ; Ocean 

Dubois' Appeal, 38 i'tnn. St. 231 ; Gray Ins. Co. v. Eider, 22 Pick. 210; Hobson 

V. Brackenridgc, 2 Penn. 75, 2 Grutnl. Ev. v. Watson, 34 iMe. 20. And even without 

§ 144, n. 4. statute provisions. Sexton I'.Pikc, 8Eng. 

(c) Heartt r. Chipman, 2 Aik. 162. (Ark.), 193. A counsel, who, with his 

The subject of the attorney's lien has been client's consent, withdraws from a case 

much discussed in this country. Wilson after having tendered beneficial services, 

!'. Burr, 25 Weiiil. 386 ; Stevens v. Adams, does not thereby lose his right to compen- 

23 id. 57 ; Newman v. Washington, Mart, sation for the services rendered, unless at 

& Y. 79 ; Wells v. Hatch, 43 N. H. 246. the time of liis witlidrawal he waives or 

And see Van Atta v. McKlnney, 1 Harr. abandons his claim to compensation. 

235. An attorney has, in some States, u Coopwood c. Wallace, 12 Ala. 790. 

lien upon his client's papers left with Iiim, (rf) Hall u. Ashurst, 1 Cr. & M. 714; 


How far an attorney at law may bind his clients by hio ar- 
rangements in a case, without special instructions or authority, 
may not be quite certain. We take the practice to be, however, 
that his entries on the docket, his agreements about contin- 
uances, about evidence, or the conduct of the trial, or, perhaps, 
about costs, and the like, would, in general, bind the client. 

According to the American authorities, an attorney employed 
in the usual way to conduct a suit, has, in general, no authority 
to enter into a compromise without the sanction of his client, 
express or implied. The liability of counsel has recently been 
adjudicated in an important case before the English court of 
Exchequer, where it was held that no action lies against a 
counsel who, being employed to conduct a cause, enters into a 
compromise of the matter at issue, even though contrary to his 
client's instructions, provided it is done bona fide, (e) 

If an attorney cannot by virtue of his general authority bind 
his clients by bargains, as, for compromise or settlement of a 
case, stiU less can he enter into agreements quite independent 
of any action. {/) 

It is said, in many cases, that an attorney has the right to 
submit his client's ease to arbitration, {g) But in other cases 
this power, for what seem to us good reasons, is confined to 
suits actually commenced, [h) 

There are many English statutes relating to the powers, 
duties, and responsibilities of attorneys, which have no force in 

iTeson V. Coning:ton, 1 B. & C. 160 ; Bur- McGregor, 12 N. H. 179 ; Woods v. Blod- 

rell V. Jones, 3 B. & Aid. 47 ; Scrace v. gett, 15 N. H. 569. 

Whittington, 2 B. & C. 11 ; Watson v. (e) Swinfen «. Lord Chelmsford, 5 H, 

Murrel, 1 C. & P. 307.— In New Hamp- & N. 590. 

shire, it IS held that where a plaintiff re- (/) This subject is fully considered in a 

sides within tliat State, and employs an recent English case. Swinfen v. Swinfen, 1 

attorney in his behalf to commence an ac- C. B. (n. s.) 364. See also. Smith's Heirs v. 

tion for him, such attorney is authorized Dixon, 3 Met. (Ky.) 438, for the discussion 

by the employment to place the name of of the extent of an attorney's power to bind 

the plaintiff upon the writ as indorser, and liis client under his general authority, and 

to bind him as such ; and in such case, if independent of any special authority con- 

the indorsement be thus : " A, plaintiff, ferred by the client. 

by his attorney B," the plaintiff is regarded ig) Filmer o. Delber, 3 Taunt. 486; 

as the indorser, and the attorney is not Fariel u. Eastern Co. R. Co. 2 Exch. 344 ; 

personally bound ; but if the plaintiff re- Wilson v. Young, 9 Barr, 101 ; Holker v. 

side out of the State, the attorney having Parker, 7 Cranch, 436 ; i'albot v. M'Gee, 

no authority to bind the plaintiff, is him- 4 Monr. 375. 

self personally bound by such indorse- (h) Jenkins v. Gillespie, 10 Sm. & M. 

ment, and the writ accordingly is properly 31. And see Scarborough V.Reynolds, 

and sufiSciently indorsed. Pottingill v. 12 Ala ,252. 



[book L 

this country. Most of our courts have their own rules of prac- 
tice bearing somewhat on this subject ; (i) but these have no 
binding force in other courts. The rules of the Supreme Court 
of the United States are, however, binding on the Circuit and 
District Courts of the United States, so far as they are appUca- 
ble to them. 

(i) The nature and scope of the au- 
thority of attorneys at law in this countiy 
are considered in Holker v. Parker, 7 
Cranch, 436 ; EiTvin v. Blake, 8 Pet. 18 ; 
Union Bank of Georgetown v. Geary, 5 
id. 99 ; United States v. Curry, 6 How. 
106; United States v. Yates, id. 605; 

Smith's Adm'r v. Lamherts, 7 Gratt. 138 ; 
Lewis V. Gamage, 1 Pick. 347 ; Jenney v. 
Lesdernier, 20 Me. 183 ; Jewitt v. Wad- 
leigh, 32 id. 110 ; Slackhouse v. O'Hara, 
14 Penn. 88 ; Walker v. Scott, 8 Eng. 
(Ark.) 644 ; Smith's Heu'S v. Dixon, a 
Met. (Ky.), 438. 




Sect. I. — The Origin of Trusts, 

It can hardly be denied that Trusts in the English law, had 
a fraudulent origin. It was sought, by the intervention of a 
trustee, to evade the feudal law of tenures, and the prohibitions 
of tne statutes of Mortmain, and to place property where a 
creditor could not reach it. The practice became common ; 
and as such trustee was not accountable at common law, the 
Chancellor, in the reign of Richard II., applied the writ of sub- 
pcena to call him before the Court of Chancery, where he might 
be compelled to do what equity and justice required. " A 
trust," said Sir Robert Atkins, (a) " had for its parents fraud 
and fear, and for its nurse a court of conscience." The obvi- 
ous utility of trusts has made them very common : but almost 
the whole jurisdiction over trustees has always remained in the 
Courts of Equity (b) So far as they come under the super- 
vision and control of the common law, trustees are treated in 
most respects as agents, and most of the principles and rules of 
law in relation to them have been anticipated and stated under 
that head. 

(a) Attorney-General v. Sands, Har- but only a confidence and trust, for which 

dres, 491, arguendo, "A trust is altogether he hath no remedy by the common law, 

the same that ? use was before 27 Hen. but his remedy was only by subpoena in 

VIII., and they have the same parents, chancery. If the feoffees would not per- 

fraud and fear ; and the same nm'se, a form the order of the chancery, then their 

court of conscience. By statute law, a persons for the breach of the confidence 

use, trust, or confidence, are all one and were to be imprisoned till they did per- 

the same thing. What a use is, ride form it." — Foorde v. Hoskins, 2 Bulst. 

PI. Com. 352, and 1 Rep. in Chudleigh's 337. Per Coke, C. J. : "If cestui que use 

case ; and they are collateral to the land ; desires the feoffees to make the estati 

& cestui que trust ]ia.s nuith&x jus ad rem yxor over, and they so to do refuse, for this 

in re." refnsal an action upon the case lieth not, 

(6) Co. Lit. 272 b ; Chudleigh's case, because for this he hath his proper remedy 

: Rep. 121., "So that, he who hath a by a subpoena in the chancery." 
use hath not jus, neque in re, neque ad rem, 




Trusts are simple when property is vested in one person upon 
trust for another, without any particular directions or provis- 
ions ; and then the nature and operation of the trust are deter- 
mined by legal construction. They are special, where the pur- 
poses of the trust, and the manner in which they are to be 
accomplished are especially pointed out and prescribed ; and 
then these express provisions must be the rule and measure of 
the trustee's rights and duties. 

They may be merely ministerial, as where one receives 
money only to pay the debt of the giver, or an estate is vested 
in him merely that he may convey it to another. Or they may 
be discretionary, where much is left to the prudence and judg- 
ment of the trustee. But in aU cases, the trustee, by accepting 
the trust, engages that he possesses, and that he wiU exert, that 
degree of knowledge, intelligence, and care, reasonably requisite 
for the proper discharge of the duties which he undertakes to 

A trust, with a power annexed, is distinguished from a mix- 
ture of trust and power, (c) In the former case, as where lands 
are vested in trust, with a power in the trustees to make leases 
of a certain kind, or length, the trustee may or may not exercise 
this power, and will not be compelled to do so, unless his neg- 
lect to exercise it be fraudulent and wrongful. But in the latter 
case, as where lands or funds are vested in trust for certaio 
persons, to be " distributed among them according to the best 
judgment of the trustee," here the distribution is of the essence 
of the trust, and must be made ; although in the manner of 
distribution, the courts wUl not interfere unless to prevent fraud 
or other wrong. 

(c) Gowei- V. Mainwm-ing, 2 Ves. Sen. 89; Cole v. Wade, 16 Ves. Jr 43. 


Trustees are also private or public. The former hold prop- 
erty for the benefit of an individual (the cestui que trust} or 
more than one, but who are distinctly pointed out, personally, 
or by other sufficient description. Public trustees are those 
who hold for the benefit of the whole public, or for a certain 
large part of the public, as a town or a parish ; and they 
are usually treated as official persons, with official rights and 



A private trustee is, as we have seen, one to whom property, 
either real or personal, has been given to be held in trust for 
the benefit of others ; and the most common instances are 
trustees of property for the benefit of children, or other devisees 
or legatees, or for married women, or for the payment of the 
debts of an insolvent, or for the management and winding up 
of some business and the like. 

The legal estate is in the trustee, and the equitable estate 
is in the cestui que trust; but as the trustee holds the estate, 
although only with the power and for the purpose of managing 
it, he is bound personally by the contracts he makes as 
trustee, although designating himself as such ; and nothing 
wiU. discharge him but an express provision, showing clearly 
that both parties agreed to act upon the responsibihty of the 
funds alone, or of some other responsibility, exclusive of that 
of the trustee ; or some other circumstance clearly indicating 
another party who is bound by the contract, and upon whose 
credit alone it is made. The mere use by the promisor of the 
name of Trustee, or of any other name of office or employment, 
will not discharge him. Some one must be bound by the con- 
tract, and if he does not bind some other, he binds himself, (d) 

(d) Thomas v. Bishop, Cas. Temp, by him generally, though it was drawn 
Hardw. 9, 2 Str. 955. In this case a on account of the company. Childs v. 
cashier was lield liable on a bill accepted Monins, 2 Br. & B. 460. A promissory 


and the official name is then regarded only as describing and 
designating him. 

A trustee is held not only to careful management of the 
trust property, so that it shall not be wasted or diminished, but 
he is bound to secure its reasonable productiveness and increase. 
If it lie idle in his hands, without cause, he will be charged 
interest, (e) In some instances he is charged compound inter- 
est ; but there is some discrepancy in the cases in which the 
question of compounding interest occurs. On the whole, we 
think the rule may be stated thus : Interest wiU be compounded, 
or computed with annual rests, where the trustee is guilty of 
gross delinquency, or mingles the trust property with his own 
for his own benefit, or employs it in trade, or otherwise so uses 
the trust funds as to justify the belief that he has actually 
earned interest upon the interest ; and the reason for charging 
compound interest is much stronger, when the trustee refuses 
to exhibit the accounts, which would show, precisely, what loss 
or advantage he has derived from the trust funds. (/) But he 

note, by which the makers, as executors, received, or ought to have received, or 

jointly and severally promise to pay on de- that he is estopped from saying he did not 

mand witli interest, renders them person- receive. 

ally liable.— Eaton «. Bell, 5 B. & Aid. {/) Jones v. Foxall, 13 E. L. &E. 140; 

34. Commissioners of a private inclo- Schieffelin u. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 620 ; 

sure act, are personally liable on drafts Evertson v. Tappen, 5 Johns. Ch. 497; 

drawn on bankers, requesting them to Luken's Appeal, 7 W. & S. 48 ; Boyn- 

pay the sums therein mentioned on ac- ton v. Dyer, 18 Pick. 1; Turney f . Wil- 

count of public drainage, and to place liams, 7 Yerg. 172; Wright u. Wright, 2 

the same to their account, as commis- McCord, Ch. 200 ; Bryant w. Craig, 12 

sioners. — Row v. Pettet, 1 A. & E. 196, Ala. 354 ; KaiT's Adm'r v. KaiT, 6 Dana, 

3 Nev. & M. 456. The makers of a note 3 ; Rowan v. Kirkpatrick, 14 111. 1 ; Bar- 

who sign it "as churcli-wardens and over- ney v. Saunders, 16 How. 535. See also 

seers," are personally liable, although the Raphael v. Boehm, 11 Vcs. 92, s. c. 13 

loan was for the use of the parish. — Ex Ves. 407, 590 ; Ashburnham v. Thomp- 

parte Buckley, 14 M. & W. 469. It was son, 13 Ves. 402 ; Tebbs v. Carpenter, 1 

held, in this, that there was no scp- Madd. 299 ; Swindall v. Swindall, 3 ted. 

arato right of action against " R. M. " a Eq. 285. — But mere neglect to invest 

partner who signed a promissory note for the money, or an improper investment, 

himself and his copartners thus : "For without gross delinquency, Knott v. Cot- 

J. C, R. M., J. P., and T. S.," " R. M." tee, 13 E. L. & B. 304; Robinson v. 

See Packard v. Nye, 2 Met. 47 ; ante, p. Robinson, 9 E. L. & E. 69; Schieffelin 

55. V. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 620 ; McCall's 

(e) Gre^n v. Winter, 1 Johns. Ch. 26; case, 1 Ashm. 357 ; English v. Harvey, 2 

Manning v. Manning, 1 Johns. Ch. 527 ; Bawle, 305 ; Harland's case, 5 Rawle, 

Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns. Ch. 620. 323; Findlay v. Smith, 7 S. & R. 264; 

In Attorney-General v. Alford, 31 E. L. Dietterich v. Heft, 5 Ban-, 87, or merely 

& E. 466, the rule upon this point is mingling the trust funds with his own, is 

laid down thus : The measure by which not sufficient to charge liim with com- 

the court ought to charge a trustee in- pound interest. Clarkson !•. De Peyster, 

terest is, to ascertain what interest he has 1 Hopk. Ch. 424 ; s. c. nom. De Peystei ». 

GH. VII.] 



will not be charged even with simple interest until a reasonable 
time for investment has elapsed ; and this has been held, in some 
cases, six months, a year, or even two years, (g) 

A trustee must not himself purchase the property which it is 
his duty as trustee to seU ; nor sell the property which, as trus- 
tee, he purchases. This rule applies, in its whole p\iftut, to all 
agents, and the reasons, limitations, and authorities for it, were 
presented in treating of that subject. 



There is an important diiTerence between these trustees and 
private trustees, in respect to their personal responsibility for 
their contracts. Where one acts distinctly for the public, and 
in an official or quasi official capacity, although he engages that 

Clarkson, 2 Wend. 77; StafFord in re, 11 
Barb. 353 ; Ker v. Snead, Circuit Court 
of Virginia (Oct. 1847); Scarburgh, J., 
11 Law Rep. 217. In the case of Fay v. 
Howe, 1 Pick. 527, and Robbins v. Hay- 
ward, cited in a note to this case, where 
large sums of money had come into the 
hands of a guardian of infants, there be- 
ing rents of real estate and income from 
public stocks periodically receired, and 
no account having been settled for many 
years, it was ordered that an E^ccount 
should be settled with a rest for every 
year, and the balance thus struck should 
be carried forward, to be again on inte- 
rest, whenever the sum should be so large 
that a trastee- acting faithfully and dis- 
creetly would have put it into a produc- 
tive state. And five hundred dollars was 
the sum which the court thouglit should 
subject the guardian to this charge. But 
for cases in which it appears to be doubted 
whether compound interest should be 
charged to a trustee, see McCall's case^ 
1 Ashm. 357 ; English v. Harvey, 2 Rawle, 
305 ; Harland's case, 5 Rawle, 323 ; Find- 
lay V. Smith, 7 S. & R. 264; Ackerman 
!;."Emott, 4 Barb. 626. And see Diette- 
rich V. Heft, 5 Barr. 87 ; Kerr v. Laird, 
27 Mississ. 544. See Pennyjjacker's Ap- 

peal, 41 Penn. St. 494, where it is held 
that the principle of re^ts does not apply to 
guardians, executors, or administrators, 
who omit or neglect to put trust-funds out 
at interest. 

(g) In Karr's Adm'r v. Karr, 6 Dana, 3, 
two years were allowed for periodical rests, 
at the end of whicli periods the interest 
should be made principal. In Dunscomb v. 
Dunscomb, 1 Johns. Oh. 508, six months 
after receipt of the moneys was thought a 
reasonable time, after which interest should 
be charged. In Merrick's Estate, 1 Ashm. 
304, six months was allowed. And see 
Won-ell's Appeal, 23 Penn. St. 44. In 
De Peyster v. Clarkson, 2 Wend. 77, six 
months was allowed. In Fox v. Wilcocks, 
1 Binn. 194, the administrator was held 
chargeable with interest after twelve 
months had elapsed from the death of the 
intestate. In Boynton v. Dyer, 1 8 Pick. 
8, one year was considered the proper 
period. In Schieffelin v. Stewart, 1 Johns 
Oh. 620, the plaintiff was administrator, 
and wa» allowed from the 8th September, 
1803, when administration was granted, 
to the 6th July, 1805, when the last debt 
of any magnitude was paid to the estate ; 
then interest began, and the account was 
computed afterwards with annual rests. 



[book I. 

certain things should be done, he is nevertheless not liable on 
this engagement, unless there be something in the contract, or 
some admissible evidence respecting it, which shows that the 
parties understood and intended the promisor to make his 
promise personally, and to be bound himself, instead of the 
State, or in addition to the State, for the due performance of 
the promise. (A) 

But trustees and other officers are sometimes held personally 
upon their contracts, as for payment of wages, materials sup- 
plied, &c., where they have charge of public works, and have 
funds which they may use for these purposes, and especially 
where the nature of the transaction shows that the party 
dealing with them may weU have supposed that he was deal- 
ing with them on their own account, or that they intended, 
although acting for the public, to be responsible for the mate- 
rials they bought or the labor they hked, (?) Such trustees 

(7i) Macbeath w. Haldimand,! T.E.172. 
This was an action on promises against a 
defendant (who was Governor of Quebec), 
for work, labor, &c. Bullet; J., said : "It 
is ti'ue that he (the defendant) gave the 
orders to Sinclair, and that every thing 
which the plaintiff did was pursuant to 
directions from the latter, whom he was 
instracted to obey ; but these orders did 
not flow from the defendant in his own 
personal character, but as governor and 
agent for the public ; and so the plaintiff 
himself considered it. And in any case 
where a man acts as agent for the public, 
and treats in that capacity, there is no pre- 
tence to say that he is personally liable." 
XJnwin v. Wolseley, 1 T. E. 674. Ash- 
hurst, J., said : " It would bo extremely 
dangerous to hold that governors and 
commanders in chief should make them- 
selves personally liable by contracts which 
they enter into on the part of the govern- 
ment. It would be detrimental to the 
king's service, for no private person would 
accept of any command on such tcmis. 
The case of Macbeath v. Haldimand seems 
to govern the present. It was there de- 
termined that a commander was not an- 
swerable for contracts entered inte by him 
on behalf of government. And whether 
the contract be by parol or by deed, it 
makes no difference as to the construction 
to be put on it. That indeed was a 
stronger case than the present ; because 

there it was left open to evidence, from 
whence it was to be inferred that the con- 
tract was made by the defendant as the 
agent of the government, but here it ap- 
pears in express terms that the defendant 
entered into this contract on the behalf of 
government." Sec also Hodgson v. Dex- 
ter, 1 Cranch, 34.^ ; Tucker v. Justices, 13 
Ired. L. 434 ; Stephenson u. Weeks, 2 
Foster (N. H.), 257. 

(i) Horsley v. Bell and others, Ambl. 
769. An act of parliament was passed to 
make a cei-tain brook navigable. The de- 
fendants, with many other persons, were 
named commissioners to put the act in 
execution. Coftain tolls were to be 
paid by vessels which should navigate 
the brook, and the commissioners were 
empowered to boiTOW money on these 
tolls. The commissioners employed the 
plaintiff to do different parts of the works, 
and such of the commissioners as were 
present at the several meetings, made or- 
ders rehitive thereto. Every one of them 
was present at some of the meetings, but 
no one was present at all the meetings. 
The fund proving deficient, it was held 
that all the acting commissioners were 
personally liable to the plaintiff. The 
Lord Chancellor and the judges agreed in 
opinion. " The commissioners had power 
to borrow money, and ought to take care 
to be provided. That the workmen who 
engaged to do the work could not know 

CH. Vn.] TRUSTEES. 125 

know the state of the means in their hands, and how far they 
may rely upon a public provision of funds, and may contract 
accordingly, while those who deal with them cannot know this 
at all, or certainly not so well, (j) 

The trae principle which runs through all of these cases, and 
applies alike to private and public trustees, is this. To whom 
did the promisee give credit, and to whom did the promisor un- 
derstand him to give credit ? If the promisee gave credit to the 
promisor personally, and was justified in so understanding the 
case, and the promisor as a rational person knew or should have 
known that the promisee trusted to him personally, and he did 
not guard the promisee from so trusting him, then he cannot 
afterwards turn him over to those whom he represents, because 
he must abide his responsibility. On the other hand, if the 
promisor supposed the promisee to trust only to those for whose 
benefit he acted, or rather to the funds and means possessed by 
him as trustee, and if he had a right to suppose so, and the 
promisee did not demand and receive the assurance of his per- 
sonal Liability, then no such liability exists, and he is bound 
only to act faithfully as a trustee in the discharge of his 

An agent who exceeds his authority and fails to bind his 
principal, becomes liable himself. On this familiar principle 
public trustees or officers, as town or parish officers, who enter 
into contracts in their official capacity, and on behalf of the 
corporations which they represent, if they so deviate from or 
exceed their authority as not to bind these corporations, are 
themselves liable, (k) But whether they are liable on the con- 

the state of the fund, nor was it their to answer the purpose, they, when they 

business to inquire ; they gave credit to contract with others, who do not know, 

the commissioners." CuUen v. Duke of act as if representing that they had a fund 

Queensberry, 1 Bro. Ch. 101, and notes. applicable to the object, and are then per- 

(./) Higgins V. Livingstone, 4 Dow, sonally bound to provide funds to pay the 

341, 355. Lord Eldon, in this case, said : contractors." 

" As to the general liability of parliament- (k) Sprott v. Powell, 3 Bing. 478 ; 

ary tmstees, if I were to give an opinion, Leigh v. Taylor, 7 B. & C. 491 ; Heude- 

I would say that when persons act under bourck a. Langton, 3 C. & P. 571 ; Kirby 

a parliamentary trust, and state themselves v. Bannister, 5 B. & Ad. 1069, s. c. 3 

as so acting, tliey are not to be held per- Nev. & II. 119; Burton v. Griffiths, 11 

sonally liable. But this also, I think, M. &W. 817; Bay u. Cook, 2 N. J, 343 ; 

rests on strong principle, that as the trus- Husbands v. Smith's Adm'r, 14 B. Mon. 

tees must know whether there are funds 211. — TJthwatt u. Blkins, 13 M. & W 



[book I. 

tract, or in case, must depend on the character and circum- 
stances of the transaction, (l) 

772. Churchwardens and overseers of a 
parish having taken a lease of land in 
their official capacity, which they were not 
authorized, by the statute 59 Geo. III., 
c. 1 2, to hold in the nature of a corpora^ 
tion, it was held to be a personal under- 
taking of then' own, on whicli they were 
individually responsible for the payment 

of rent. — "If an overseer of the poor 
contract with tradesmen upon account of 
the poor, and upon his own credit, as soon 
as he receives so much of the poor's 
money, it becomes his own debt." Holt, 
C. J., Anon. 12 Mod. 559. 
{I) See ante, p. 68, note {w). 





Thet act as the personal representatives of the deceased, 
having in their hands his means, for the purpose of discharging 
his liabilities, or executing his contracts, and of carrying into 
effect his will, if he have left one ; and in general, they are 
hable only so far as these means, or assets in their hands, are 
applicable to such purpose. But they may become personally 
liable ; and a clause in the statute of frauds, hereafter to be 
spoken of, refers to this subject. In England it is regarded as 
the peculiar province of a court of equity to administer justice 
in cases of legacies, (a) The law and practice on this subject 
varies' somewhat in different States in this country. 

(a) Decks v. Strutt, 5 T. R. 690, and 
see Jones v. Tanner, 7 B. & C. 542. But 
it seems Deeks v. Strutt is to he understood 
as only deciding that an action for a leg- 
acy cannot be maintained upon an assent 
of the executor merely implied from his 
possession of sufficient assets ; leaving it 
open to say that an action may lie upon 
an express promise by him in considera- 
tion of assets, or upon an express admis- 
sion by him that he has money in his 
hands for the payment of such legacy. 
Barber v. Fox, 2 Wms. Saund. 137 c. n. 
(a), citing Atkins v. Hill, Cowp. 284, and 
Gorton v. Dyson, 1 Br. & B. 219 It has 
been held that where an account of the 
residuary estate of a testator has been 
made out by the executors, and signed by 
the parties interested, under which ac- 
count all of them have been paid except 
one, such one may recover his proportion, 
with interest, in assumpsit against the 
executors. Gregory v. Harman, 3 C. & P. 
205. Upon the assent of the executor to 
a bequest of a specific chattel, whether per- 
sonal or real, the interest in it vests in the 
legatee, and he may recover it by an action 
at law. Doe v. Guy, 3 East, 120. And see 

Paramours;. Yardly,Plowd. 539. Whether 
an executor-has assented to a bequest is 
a question of fact for the jury, and not a 
matter of law to be determined by the 
court. Mason v. Farnell, 12 M. & W 
647. Lord Holt is reported to have said in 
Ewer V. Jones, 2 Salk. 415, that a devisee 
may maintain an action at common law 
against a terre-tenant, for a legacy devised 
out of land ; for where a statute, as the 
statute of wills, gives aright, the party by 
consequence shall have an action of law 
to recover, it. In Braithwaite v. Skinner, 
5 M. & W. 313, this dictum was much 
discussed, and the learned Barons were of 
opinion, that it was to be taken with a 
material qualification, which is thus stated 
by Parke, B. : " The statute of wills en- 
ables a party to dispose by will of the 
property which he might have disposed of 
during his lifetime at his freewill and 
pleasure. I think the meaning of Lord 
Holt is this — that if a person gives an in- 
terest which could be enforced by an ac- 
tion at law, the statute would give an 
action for it. Thus, if a person devised 
by mil a right of common, the devisee 
would have a right of action for it; so if 



[book r 

It is said that the promise of an executor to pay a debt, 
" whenever sufficient effects are received from the estate of the 
deceased," must be construed to mean sufficient effects received 
in the ordinary course of administration, according to law. (b) 
If an executor or administrator receives, as such, a promissory 
note or bill of the deceased, and indorses the same, he is liable 
upon it personally, (c) If he makes a note or bill, signing it 
" as executor," he is personally liable, unless he expressly limits 
his promise to pay, by the words, " out of the assets of my 
testator," or " if the assets be sufficient," or in some equivalent 
way ; (d) but a note or biU so qualified would not be nego- 
tiable, because on condition. If an executor or administrator 

he devised a rent which was not a free- 
hold rent (which could not be the subject 
of an action at law), an action would lie 
for it. So if he devised a right of way, it 
could be enforced by action ; or if he left 
a term, the right to it miglit be enforced 
by ejectment. So if the testator clearly 
meant to impose a duty upon another per- 
son, obliging him to pay a legacy, an ac- 
tion of debt would lie for it against the 
person on whom the duty of paying the 
money was imposed : as if the testator left 
an estate in fee to A, directing him to pay 
a sum of money to B ; I am not prepared 
to say that an action of debt might not 
lie after A had accepted the estate, found- 
ed upon the duty created by the testator of 
paying that sum. But it is going too far 
to say that the statute would give a right 
of action for those tilings whicfi are merely 
equitable interests ; as, for example, if a 
testator had created a trust in favor of a 
person, it would be absurd to say that 
person could enforce the trust by an action 
at law." In this case the testator devised 
lands in fee, after the determination of 
certain life-estates, to A, B, and C, as 
tenants in common, subject to and charged 
with the payment of j£200, which he 
thereby bequeathed to, and to be equally 
divided among, the children of his niece ; 
A and B, during the life of one of the 
tenants for life, granted their reversion in 
two undivided tliird parts of the land to 
mortgagees for five hundred years. It 
was held that an action of debt could not 
be maintained against the termors for a 
share of £200 so bequeathed, on the 
ground that, — admitting Lord Holt's dic- 
tum to be coiTect, that where the testator 

merely intended to create a duty from one 
person to another, the law would give a 
remedy, — in this case no duty was imposed 
upon the defendants towards tlie plaintiff, 
which could be enforced by an action of 
debt. iSanble, no action at law could be 
maintained, but the propei- remedy was in 
equity. And see on this point Bcocker ;;. 
Beeci<er, 7 Johns. 99 ; Van Orden v. Van 
Orden, 10 Jolms. 30. — In Connecticut 
and New Hampshire, "it has been held that 
an action at law will lie against an execu- 
tor upon a promise implied from the pos- 
session of assets. Knapp v. Hanford, 6 
Conn. 170; Pickering v. Pickering, 6 
N. H. 120. But it is believed that in 
jurisdictions where courts of chancery 
have existed, the doctrine of the English 
cases has been followed. See Kent v. 
Somervell, 7 G. & J. 265 ; Sutton v. 
Grain, 10 G. & J. 458. — An action at 
law by a legatee for a legacy an an exec- 
utor's promise, must be brought against 
the executor in his "personal, not in his 
representative, capacity. Kayser v. Dish- 
er, 9 Leigh, 357. 

(b) Bowerbank u. Monteiro, 4 Taunt. 

(c) Buller, J., King v. Thorn, 1 T. R. 
489 ; Curtis's Ex'x v. Bank of Somerset, 
7 Har. & J. 25. 

(d) Childs V. Monins, 2 Br. & B. 460 ; 
King V. Thom, 1 T. R. 489 ; Woods v. 
Eidley, 27 Miss. 119; Forster v. Fuller, 
6 Mass. 58, where the principle was applied 
to the case of a guardian. — As to cove- 
nants by executora or administrators, 
made professedly in their capacity as 
such, see Sumner v. Williams, 8 Mass 
162; Thayer v. Wendell, 1 Gallis. 37. 


submits a disputed question to arbitration, in general terms, 
and without an express limitation of his liability, and the arbi- 
trators award that he shall pay a certain sum, he is liable to pay 
it whether he has assets or not. (e) But if the award be merely 
that a certain sum is due from the estate of the deceased, with- 
out saying that the executor or administrator is to pay it, he is 
not precluded from denying that he has assets. (/) 

When there is a contract with an executor or administrator, 
by virtue of which money has become due, arid the money if 
recovered wiR be assets in his hands, he may, in general, sue for 
it in his representative capacity, (g) And so he may be sued as 
executor for money paid for his use in that capacity, (/t) 

With respect to covenants relating to the freehold, the rule 
of law is, that for the breach of a covenant collateral or in gross, 
whether such breach occur before or after the death of the 
covenantee, the personal representative must sue and not the 
heir ; (i) for the breach of a covenant which runs with the Icmd, 
the heir must sue if the breach occur after the covenantee's 
death, the personal representative if it occur before, (j) The 
doctrine of a continuing breach, for which the heir or assignee 
may recover if the ultimate and substantial damage is suffered 
by him, was established in England by the case of Kingdon v, 
Nottle, {k) but it has not been adopted in this country, (l) 

(e) Eiddel v. Sutton, 5 Bing. 200. C. 444 ; Miles u. Durnford, 13 E. L. & 

(f) Pearson v. Henry, 5 T. R. 6. E. 120. 

Ig) Cowell v. Watts, 6 East, 405 ; King (t) Lord Ahinger, C. B., Raymond v. 

V. thorn, 1 T. R. 487 ; Marshall v. Broad- Fitch, 2 C. M. &'R. 588, 599, 5 Tyr. 985 ; 

hurst, 1 Tyr. 348, 1 Cr. & J. 403 ; Heath Lucy v. Levington, 2 Lev. 26, 1 Ventr. 

V. Chilton, 12 M. & "W. 632; Kane v. 175; Bacon's Abr. £recu;ors and Admin- 

Paul, 14 Pet. 33. istrators, N. 

(h) Ashby v. Ashby, 7 B. & C. 444. — (./) Com. Dig. Covenant, B. 1, Adminis- 

But he is only liable personally in an tration, B. 13 ; Morley v. Polhill, 2 Ventr. 

action for money lent to him as executor, 56, 3 Salk. 109 ; Smith v. Simons, Comb, 

or had and received by him as executor. 64. 

Rose V. Bowler, 1 H. Bl. 108 ; PoweU v. {k) 1 M. & Sel. 355 ; 4 M. & Sel. 53 ; 

Graham, 7 Taunt. 586 ; Jennings v. New- King v. Jones, 5 Taunt. 418. Along with 

man, 4 T. R. 347;-and see observations the authority of this case seems to fall 

of the judges in Ashby v. Ashby, 7 B. & also the doctrine on which it was founded, 

(l) Greenby u. Wilcocks, 2 Johns. 1 ; Com. 472. — The case, of Kingdon v. 

Mitchell V. Warner, 5 Conn. 497 ; Bed- Nottle has, however, been substantially 

doe's Executor v. Wadsworth, 21 Wend, followed in Ohio and Indiana. Foote v. 

120; Clark w. Swift, 3 Met. 390; Hacker Burnett, 10 Ohio, 317; Martin v. Baker 

Storer, 8 Greenl. 228, 232 ; 4 Kent, 5 Blackf. 232. 

VOL. I. 9 



[book I 

In general, every right ex contractu^ which the deceased pos- 
sessed at the time of his death, passes to his executor or admin- 
istrator ; (m) and so strong is this rule, that it prevails against 
special words of limitation in the contract itself, (w) But con- 
tracts may be extinguished and absolutely determined by the 
death of the party with whom they are made, (o) If money be 
payable by a bond to such person as the obligee may appoint 
by will, and the testator makes no appointment by his will, the 
debt dies, as the executor is not considered his appointee for 
that purpose, {ji) Nor could an administrator, where there was 
no will, claim the money. 

The law raises no implied promise to the personal represent- 
ative, in respect to a promissory note held by the deceased, [q) 

and of which so much is made in the 
books, (see Williams on Executors, Istcd. 
519; 1 Lomax on Executors, 292), that 
an action can in no case be maintained in 
the name of the executor, unless an injury 
to the personal estate appears. In England 
the Court of Exchequer have gone as far 
as they can without quite overthrowing 
Kingdon v. ISTottle. See the opinion of 
Lord Abinger in Raymond v. Fitch, 2 C. 
M. & R. 596, 600, and the still later case 
of Ricketts v. Weaver, 12 M. & W. 718, 
where Parke, B., said, " The question, 
therefore, is reduced to this, whether an 
executor can sue for the breach of a cove- 
nant to repair in the lifetime of the lessor, 
who was tenant for life, without averring 
special damage. On that point Raymond 
V. Fitch, in which all the cases were con- 
sidered, is an authority directly in point, 
and ought not to be shaken. The result of 
that case is, that unless it be a covenant 
in which the heir atone can sue (according 
to Kingdon v. Nottle and King v, Jones) 
for a breach of the covenant in the life- 
time of the lessor, the executor can sue, 
unless it be a mere personal contract, in 
which the rule applies that actio personalis 
moritnr cum persona. The breach of coA'e- 
nant is the damage ; if the executor be 
not the proper jierson to sue, the action 
cannot be brought by any one." In this 
country, where the courts are fi-ee from 
the shackles which the authority of King- 
don V. Nottle and kindred cases imposes, 
it is reasonable to believe that the later 
doctrine (which is also the older doctrine), 
as to actions by executors, will be carried 
to its full extent. See Clark v. Swift, 3 
Met. 390. 

(m) Comyns's Digest, Administration, 
B. 13 ; Bacon's Abridgment, Executors 
and Administrators, N. ; Morley v. Pol- 
hill, 2 Ventr. 56, 3 Salk. 109; Smith v. 
Simons, Comb. 64 ; Lucy v. Levington, 1 
Ventr. 176, 2 Lev. 26 ; Raymond u. Fitch, 
2 C. M. & R. 588, Ricketts v. Weaver, 
12 M. & W. 718 ; Carr i;. Roberts, 5 B. 
& Ad. 84, per Parke, J. 

(ji) Devon v. Pawlett, 11 Vin. Abr. 
133, pi. 27. Somewhat analogous to this 
is the point stated in Leonard Lovies' 
case, 10 Rep. 87 b, that a chattel interest 
in land cannot be entailed. 

(o) For example, the right to recover 
for the breach of a promise to marry does 
not pass to the executor. Chamberlain v, 
Williamson, 2 M. &. Sel. 408 ; Stebbins 
V. Palmer, 1 Pick. 71. And so in other 
cases where the injury is personal, though 
accompanying a breach of contract. Parke, 
B., Beckham v. Drake, 8 M. & W. 854 ; 
Lord Eltehborouqh, C. J., Chamberlain v, 
Williamson, 2 M. & Sel. 41.5, 416. Cook 
V. Newman, 8 Ho