Skip to main content

Full text of "Digest of the decisions of the Supreme judicial court, of the state of Maine, contained in Greenleaf's, Fairfield's, Appleton's, and Shepley's reports; and comprising twenty-six volumes of the Maine reports. [1820-1847]"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/ 

gitized by 



Digitized by 





Digitized by 


Digitized by 


Digitized by 


Digitized by 









or THE 








18 49. 

Digitized by 


•^^/^ . 

3o /^r 

Entered aceording to Act of CongreM, in the year 1849, bj /^ 

Mastsbb, SitiTa A Co.» ind Philip Eastmaw^ / i^' cVlVCi'y dJ/r<Q^Cl^O. 
in the Clerk'a Office of the District Coj)^ of the District of Maine. /^. 

Digitized by 



. SniGE the preparation of this work was commenced, Tarioos naez- 
pected hindrances have delayed its completion to a period much later 
than was anticipated. As a Digest of our Reports has loQg been 
Qigently desired, by members of the profession, as well as others, this 
delay has been regretted^ but was unavoidable. 

In peferring, in the Digest, to the Volumes of the Reports^ I have 
not givea the name of the Reporter, but simply the number of the 
Volinae, in the order in which they were published, commencing with 
the fist of Greenleaf. This mode of numbering was probably intendr 
ed by the Legislature, when they directed, that the subsequent vol- 
umes Blio«id ^' be entitled, Maine Reports, and that the first volume, 
subsequent to the third volume of Fairfield's Reports, should be num- 
bered the thirteenth volume of the Maine Reports." And it is believ- 
ed, that the volume referred to, by this mode of numbering, will be 
recognized more readily, than by ^ving the name of the Reporter, and 
his number of the volume. The three volumes of Fairfield's Reports 
constitute the 10, 11, and 13, of the whole series. 
. In the plan and arrangement of the work, and the divisi<ms and 
subdivisions of subjects, it was intended, generally, to follow that of 
Mr. Minot ; both from its intrinsic excellence, and from the fact, that 
the use of his Digest was more general, and his plan and arrangement 
more familiar than any other, to the members of the profbssion in this 

In endeavoring to give, as briefly and explicitly as possible, the points 
or principles in each case, and in connexion with, or close proximity 
to, the abstracts of other cases of the same class, it was often found 

Digitized by 



incoDTenient to transcribe the abstracts, precisely as prepared hj the 
Rep(Mrters, and prefixed to the several cases. In very many instances, 
they are considerably modified in form, to adapt them to their local- 
ity, and generally condensed. 

Particular care has been taken to have the references correct, and 
to avoid errcMTs of the press. Still, a few errata have been discovered 
and noted. It is believed, that the whole number will be but small. 

The {Mincipal endeavor, in this work, has been, to present a brief 
and distinct enunciation of the legal principles decided in each case, 
and to arrange them under appropriate heads, and where they would 
be most readily sought. In its progress, I have been more and more 
sensible of the need of a nice tact, and a sound and accurate discrim- 
ination. That it is firee from faults, or that many instances may not 
be found, where a difierent arrangement might not have been more 
generally acceptable, is more than I dare to expect I trust, that it 
may be found useful ; and especially, to members of the profession, for 
whom it is principally deseed ; and to whom it is most respectfully 


Saco, June, 1849. 

Digitized by 





Appointed Jnlj 1, 1830; term of office eipired bj limitttion, at 70 jean of 
a|e, October 23, 1834. 

NATHAN WESTON, JR., LL. D., Anguta. 

Appointed October 39, 1834 ; term of office eipired October 31, 1841. 


Appelated December 10, 1841 ; resigned October 83, 1848. X s />-,^^ 

ETHER 8HEPLET, LL. D., Portland. *. . ' /v t^tu^^ W-a^i^^'Vt^ 

Appointed October 33, 1848. ^'t^di*^ elrttoB^J^f 


WILLIAM nTT PREBLE, LL. D., Pordand. * 

Appointed July 1, 1890; resigned June 18, 1899. 

NATHAN WESTON, JR., LL. D., Angnsta. 

Appointed Jnlj 1, 1890 ; appointed Chief Juatioe, October 38, 1834. 


Appointed June 35, 1839 ; resigned August 30, 1836. 


Appointed October 39, 1834 ; term of office eipired October 91, 1841. 


Appointed September 33, 1836; appointed Chief Justioe, October 93, 1846. 

JOHN 8EARLE TENNET, Norridgewock. 
Appointed October 93, 1841. 

SAMUEL WELLS, Portland. 

Appointed September 98, 1847. 

lOSEPH HOWARD, Portland.v 5 K' " .» • ^.'.\ ' 
ilppoiated October 93, 1848. 

Digitized by 



8IM0N GREENLEAF, Portland. 

Appointed September 8, 1830 ; 3d term of office expired Jme 84, 1832. 


Appointed June 27, 1832 ; resigned September 30, 1835. 

GEORGE W. PIERCE, Portland. 

Appointed October 8, 1835 ; died Norember 16, 1836. 


Appointed Febroarj 12, 1836 ', remoTcd March 5, 1841. 


Appointed March 5, 1841 ; removed January 22, 1842. 


Re-appointed January 22, 1848. 

Digitized by 



Page zli, luM 33, for zii, 135, iMd zu, 478. 
«« 44, line 99, ibr 435, •« 195. 

*• 50, lift line, fbr 50, «< 450. 

Digitized by 


Digitized by 





Ti. 941, 

zx. 406, 

▼u. 118, 

xhr. 390, 

XTiii. 354, 

xiii. 115, 

xxii. 541, 

xxu. 168, 

▼. 188, 

vi. 390, 

viii. 438, 

xFi. 215, 

X. 426, 

vii. 86, 

xL 89, 

i. 361, 

xxiT. 265, 

xxhr. 274, 

xxiy. 273, 

xu. 415, 

XT. 157, 

xxT. 488, 

xiu. 178, 

i. 120, 

i. 316, 

XTi. 465, 

XTiii. 9, 

xiT. 387, 

xxu. 133, 

XT. 292, 

xxii. 391, 

XT. 116, 

xi. 155, 

Tii. 220, 

Tui. 207, 

xH. 138, 

T. 227, 

u. 386, 

Tiii. 334, 

Abbott T. Crawford, 
Abbott T. Goodwin, 
Abbott T. HermoD, 
Abbott T. Hatchins, 
Abbott T. Mitchell, 
Abbott T. Wood, 
Abbott T. Wood, 
Ackley t. Dennison, 
Adanu t. Balcb, 
Adams t. Carver, 
Adams t. Goald, 
Adams v. Hill, 
Adams t. Jewett, 
Adams t. Moore, 
Adams t. Rowe, 
Adams t. Wiscasset 

Ajpicoltural Bank t. 

Ajnricultural Bank t. 

Agricultural Bank t. 

A^y y. Betts, 
Aiken t. Medex, 
Alden t. Fitts, 
Alden t. Gilmore, 
Aldrich T. Albee, 
Aldrich V. Fox, 
Aldrich V. Warren, 
Allard t. Lane, 

Allen T. Allen, 
Allen V. Cooper, 
Allen T. Dunn, 
Allen T. Humphrey, 
Allen V. Kimball, 
Allen T. Kincaid, 
Allen V. Littlefield, 
Allen T. Portland Stage 

Allen T. Pray, 
Allen T. Sayward, 
Alley T. Carlisle, 
Alna T. Cloogh, 


AB. — AL. 

Militia, 445. 

Agency, 17. Mortgage, 471. 

Assumpsit, 68. ETideiio«, 284. 

Evidence, 312, 317. 

BUls, &c. 133. 

Joint tenants, dDc. 400. Trespasa, 633. 

Fence, 349. Penalty, 519. 

Fisheriea, 351. 

Officer, 489. 

Witness, 670. 

Agency, 16. 

Contract, 167, 173, 182. Pleading, 532. 

Officer, 482, 485. 

Estoppel, 278. 

Judgment, 408. Scire Aciaa, 600. Writ, 682. 

Corporation, 187. Officer, 481. 

Bank, 94. Contract, 183. Corporation, 185. 

Bank, 94. Bills, &€. 108. 

Bank, 94. Corporation, 185. 
Officer, 483. Poor Debtors, 536. 
Attachment, 78. Equity, 268. Execation, 332 
Const. Law, 163. Court Martial, 197. 
Seizin, du:. 604, 606. 
Bills, &^. 110. Tender, 625. 
Bills, &JC. 103, 104. 
Evidence, 301, 305, 316. 

Contract, 175. Mortgage, 464. Notice and De- 
mand, 478. 
Deed, 224. 

Agency, 17. Contract, 172. Time, 627. 
Partnership, 499. 
Militia, 449. 

Executors, dec. 346. Fraud, A«. 363. 
Way, 666. 
Deed, 222. Statutes, 615. 

Evidence, 285. Execution, 324, 325. 

Dower, 247. 

Covenant, 200. Estoppel, 274. 

Costs, 194. 

Bond, 142. Town, 629, 630. 

Digitized by 



iii. 88, 
iv. 258, 

zxii. 116, 

ZYi. 966, 

IT. 100, 

iii. 243, 

iv. 486, 

xxiii. 440, 

T. 199, 

xi. 267, 

vU. 474, 

vi. 106, 

▼ii. 161, 
xix. 74, 

XXV. 23, 

Alna ▼. Plammor, 
AIda ▼. Pliunmer, 

Amee t. Wilson, 
Ames T. WeitoD, 
Andenon t. Andenon, 
Anderson v. Brock, 
Anderson t. Parsons, 
Anderson v. Swett, 
Andrews v. Bojd, 
Andrews v. Estes, 
Androscoggin side 

booms V. Haskell, 
Androscoggin side 

booms T. Weld, 
Appleton T. Chase, 

AL. — BA. 

Pleading, 525. Town, 629. 

Auction, 88. Damages, 207. Frauds, Statute of, 

364. Husband and Wife, 379. Pauper, 515. 
Evidence, 311. Interest, 399. Practice, 552. 
Amendment, 28. 

Divorce, 242. 

Shakers, 609. 

Appleton V. Horton, 

♦ iii. 418, Archer v. Noble, 

xiii. 261, Arnold v. Elwell, 

xvi. 249, Arnold v. Pond, 

xxi. 443, Athens v. Brown field, 

XX. 67, Atkinson v. Brown, 

xxiv. 171, Atkinson v. St. Croix 
Man. Company, 

ii. 249, Atwood v. Clark, 

xvi. 45, Augusta v. Leadbetter, 

xxiv. 112, Augusta v. Turner, 

xxi. 298, Augusta v. Vienna, 

xix. 317, Augusta v. Windsor, 

xxiv. 520, Austin v. Stevens, 

ix. 16, Avery v. Butters, 

xi. 404, Avery v. Butters, 

iv. 322, Axtell v. Coombs, 

xxiv. 196, Ayer v. Woodman, 

xix. 281, Ayers v. Hewett, 

Amendment, 32 
Amendment, 27. 
Devise, ^icc. 237. 
Militia, 450. 
Devise, dbc. 237. 
Agency, 23. 

Booms, 143. Const. Law, 160. 

Booms, 144. 

Appeal, 35. Costs, 193. 

Assumpsit, 63. Condition, 152. Contract, 168, 

172, 175. 
Eouity, 262, 266. 

Abatement, 5. Constable, 155. Officer, 488. 
Assignment, 57. Trustee Process, 643. 
Execution, 335. Judgment, 406. Scire Facias, 

Pauper, 514. 
Contract, 180. 

Agency, 25. Corporation, 186. Deposition, 235. 

Law and Fact, 420. 

Bills, Ac. 123. Town, 632. 

Pauper, 509. 

Evidence, 300. Pauper, 513, 514. 

Evidence, 289, 290. 

Betterments, 102. Const. Law, 160. Fixtures, 

352. Landlord and Tenant, 418. Real Actions, 

572. Seizin, 4cc. 604. 
Amendment, 32. Militia, 446. 
Evidence, 284, Militia, 453. 
Mills, 456. 

Poor Debtors, 538, 540. Practice, 559. 
Contract, 167, 171. Evidence, 282. Notice and 

Demand, 479. Sale, 594. 




Babb V. Kennedy, 



Babb V. Perley, 



Babcock v. Wilson, 



Bachelder v. Heagan, 



Backus V. Backus, 



Bacon v. Dyer, 

XXV i. 


Bacon v. York County 

XX vi. 


Badger v. Bank of 



Bagley v. Bailey, 



Bagley v. Buzzell, 
BaUey v. Butterfield, 



xxvi. 88, Bailey v. Day, 

Bond, 14]. Condition, 152, 153. 

Action on Case, 12. Husband and Wife, 380, 381. 
Waste, 654. 

Contract, 168, 175, 179. 

Action on Case, 12. Evidence, 302. Fires, 350. 

Divorce, 241. 

Assumpsit, 71. Bills, &c. 113, 130. 
) County Commissioners, 196 Register of Deeds, 
5 678. 

> Agency. 14. Bank, 93. Exceptions, 323. Sale, 
5 588, 596. Shipping, 610. 

Execution, 325, 332, 333. 

Bills, &c. 113, 119, 123, 124. 

Assumpsit, 59. Bond, 142, 143. Constable, 156. 
Officer, 489. 

Judgment, 407. Release, Ac. 579. 

Digitized by 




ix. 19, 

xri. 406, 

i. 186, 

XT. 440, 
xii. 196, 
XX. 178, 
IT. 66, 
IT. 67, 

T. 240, 

xi. 381, 

xii. 335, 

XTii. 347, 

xiii. 74, 

X. 414, 

i. 102, 

XTi. 33, 

XX. 369, 

xxiT. 336, 

TU. 14, 

i. 329, 
xxi. 472, 

T. 174, 
Ti. 207, 

X. 478, 

xu. 385, 
xxi. 533, 

XT. 73, 
xtx. 27, 
xxi. 501, 
xxii. 295, 

Bai]«y t. Fillebiowii, 
BaUey t. Hall, 
Bailej t. Rogers, 

Bailey t. Rost, 

Bailej t. Smith, 

BailejTille t. LowelJ, 

Baker t. Appleton, 

Baker t. Baker, 

Baker t. Haley, 

Baker t. Page, 

Baker t. Roonella, 

Baker t. Wentworth, 

Baker t. Windham, 

Baldwin t. Famsworth, Bills, &«. 116. 

Baldwin t. McClinch, Minister, 458. 

Baldwin t. Whittier, 

Balkham t. Lowe, 

Ballard t. Greenbnsh, 

Bamfbrd t. MelTin, 

Bangor t. Deer Isle, 

Bangor t. Lancey, 

Bangor Bank t. Hook, 

Bangor Bank t. Treat, 

Bangor Bridge t. McMa- 

hon, Assampsit, 59. 

Bangor House t. Hinck- 
ley, Contract, 186. 
Bangor and Piscataqius 

R. R. T. Harris, 
Banister t. Higginson, 


Attachment, 73. Laiidl«cd and T«nat» 416, 416. 
Limitations, 434. OfBcer, 488. 
Executors, drc. 339. Guardian, 375. Pleading, 
530. Probate Accounts, 563. Probate Bonds, 5^. 
Deed, 230. Joint TenanU, Ac. 401. Mills, 456. 
Abatement, 2, 4^. Amendment, 27. Writ, 680. 
Contract, 169. Town, 629. 
Costs, 193. 
Dower, 248. 
Poor Debtors, 541, 542. 
Contract, 168. 

Way, 661. 

Writ, 681. 

Certiorari, 145. 
Fisheries, 351. 
EWdence, 296. 

" ' Contnu!t, 174. 

Tax, 621. 
Attachment, 84. Orerseers, 491. 
Trustee Process, 641. 
Actions, Ac. 8. Bills, Ac. 125, 128. 
Constitutional Law, 159. Execution, 328, 329. 
Pauper, 514. 
Assessors, 49. 
Bills, Ac. 121,136. 
Bills, Ac. 129. Judgment, 404. 

Property, 567. 

Bank of Cumberland t. 

Bank of Oldtown t. 

Bank of Portland t. 

xxiii. 259, Banks t. Adams, 
XT. 268, Banks t. Pike, 
Tiii. 137, Baring, exparU^ 
xi. 463, Baring t. Calais, 
xiii. 361, Baring t. Harmon, 
zxiT. 230, Barker t. Chase, 
XX. 156, Barker t. Clark, 
XTii. 416, Barker t. Norton, 
Tiii. 101, Barker t. Roberts, 
xxii. 556, Barker t. Whittemore, 
xri. 276, Barnard t. Argyle, 
XX. 296, Barnard t. Argyle, 
xxi. 206, Barnard t. Bryant, 
zxiT. 412, Barnard t. Wheeler, 

xi. 350, Barney t. Norton, 

Tiii. 346, Barrett t. Barrett, 

Tiii. 353, Barrett t. Barrett, 

XTii. 180, Barrett t. Swann, 

i. 73, Barrett t. Thomdike, 

xxiii. 333, Barrett t. Twombly, 

xxi. 398, Barrows t. Bridge, 

xix. 303, Barry t. Palmer, 

XTii. 199, Barstow t. Augusta, 

iii. 409, Barstow t. Gray, 

Property, 568. Rail Road, 571. Tax, 622. 
Amendment, 31. Attachment, 77. ETidence, 299. 
Execution, 330. Judgment, 404. 

Bond, 137. New Trial, 475. 

Corporation, 187. Practice, 554. Witness, 678. 

Bills, Ac. 115. Payment, 518. 

Arbitration, 41, 42. Assumpsit, 66. 

Set-off, 607. 

Way, 662. 

ETidence, 312. 

ETidence, 283, 309. Rules of Court, 586. 

Assignment, 52. Attachment, 74. 

Bills, Ac. 114, 132, 133. 

Amendment, 29. 

Bailment, 91 . Sale, 591 . 

Appeal, 34. 
Assessors, 49. 
Assessors, 49. 
Damages, 211. 
Agency, 20, 21. 

New Trial, 477. 

Poor Debtors, 537, 539. 
Assumpsit, 60. Lien, 429. Ship- 
ping', 612. 

Bills, Ac. 126, 130. Practice, 559. 

Agency, 22. Executors, Ac. 346. 

Bills, Ac. 122, 126, 130. Limitations, 437. 

Partnership, 498, 503. 

Bond, 137. Contract, 171. Deed, 219. 

Arbitration, 46. Debt, 212. 

Poor Debtors, 542. 

Contract, 180. 

Way, 664. 

Frauds, Statute of, 364. Partnership, 501. Wit- 
ness, 673. 

Digitized by 



TIBLB or CA8V8. 

iT. 146, 

T. 76, 

xiii. 87, 

xxii. 9, 

X. 135, 

Tiii. S92, 

Ti. 145, 
XX. 260, 

T. 163, 
xiT. 344, 
XX. 413, 

xTi. 251, 
xxii 549, 

XTi. 458, 

xii. 422, 

xii. 262, 

xxiii. 117, 

XT. 190, 

T. 89, 

V. 94, 

xxi. 260, 

XTi. 49, 

xii. 404, 

xxiii. 284, 

xxu. 1%, 

XTi. 362, 

XTi. 137, 

xi. 109, 

xxi. 334, 

xix. 455, 

xxiii. 381, 

iii. 453, 

xu. 346, 

Tiii. 110, 
Ti. 141, 
iii. 269, 

xiU. 187, 

xxiii. 140, 

i. Ill, 

XT. 468, 

xxi. 314, 

Tii. 270, 

xxu. 34, 

iT. 374, 

iii. 405, 

T. 362, 

Tiii. 162, 

xi. 495, 

T. 192, 
xi. 62, 
xiii. 239, 
xiii. 123, 
xiT. 370, 
XT. 394, 

Burtelt T. Htrm, 
Baiter t. Martin, 
Bartlett t. Perkins, 
Basfbrd t. Brown, 
Batchelder t. Shapleich, 
Bath Turnpike t. Ma- 

BA. — BL. 

Mortgage, 469. 
Pleading, 525. 
Amendment, 27. 
Agency, 15. 
Attaclunent, 74. 

Seisin, &€. 602. TretpaM,633. 

BatUes T. Holley, 
Baxter t. Bradbury, 

Baylies t. Buatey, 
Beal T. Naaon, 
Beaman t. Whitney, 

Bean t. Arnold, 
Bean t. Bomput, 

Bean t. 
Bean t. 
Bean t. 
Bean t. 
Bean t. 
Bean t. 
Bean t. 
Bean t. 
Bean t. 










Certiorari, 145. Way, 661 . 

ETidence, 299. Preaomption, 562. 

CoTenant, 199, 200. Damuraa, 209. Estoppel, 
276, 277. Presumption, 5&. 

Betterments, 100. Mortgage, 460. 

Const. Law, 161. Heirs, 378. Limitations, 430. 

Agency, 17. Amendment, 29. Bills, 4bc. 107. 
Veedy 218. Partnership, 501. 

Bills, ^. 119. 

Executors, Ac. 341. Guardian, 376, 377. Pro- 
bate Accounts, 564. Probate Court, 566. 

Contract, 170. 

Bailment, 91. 

Equity, 269. 

Contract, 169. Town, 689. 

Militia, 453. Witness, 672. 

Mortgage, 460. 

CoTcnant, 200. Damages, 209. 

Militia, 450, 451. 

Assignment, 53. Contract, 179. Pleading, 585, 

Bear Camp RiTer Co. 

T. Woodman. 
Beckwith t. St. Croix 

Man. Co., 
Beckwith t. Smith, 
Beedy t. Reding, 
Beetham t. Lincoln, 
Belfast Academy t. ) 
Salmond, ) 

Belgrade t. Dearborn, 
Belknap t. DaTis, 
Belknap t. Milliken, 
Belmont t. Pittston, 
Bennock t. Whipple, 

Benson t. Carmel, 
Benson t. Fish, 
Berry t. Carle, 
Berry t. Spear, 

Berry t. Stinson, 
Bethum t. Turner, 
Betts T. Norris, 
Betts T. Norris, 
Biddeford t. Saco, 
Billington t. Sprague, 
fiisbee t. Etsus, 
Bishop T. Little, 
Bishop T. Little, 
Bishop T. Williamson, 
Bishop T. Williamson, 

Bixby T. Whitney, 
fiixby T. Whitney, 
Black T. Ballard, 
Blaisdell t. Briggs, 
Blaisdell t. Cowell, 
Blake t. Blossom, 

Actions, Ac. 7. Assumpsit, 59. Tolls, Ac. 628. 

Bills, <rG. 121. ETidence, 308. 

Bills, A^. 115, 117, 118, 134. 

Verdict, 652. 

Pauper, 509, 515, 516. 

Constitutional Law, 162. Literary Institution, 440. 

Way, 658, 659. 
Pauper, 508. 
Corporation, 185. 

Actions, Ac. 7. Larceny, 420. TroTer, 637. 
Pauper, 513. 
ETidence, 292. Landlord and Tenant, 415. Mort- 

gace, 459. Real Actions, 573. 
Tender, 626. 
Verdict, 651. 
RiTer, 586. Way, 655. 
Amendment, 32. Attachment, 75. Execution, 

Pleading, 526. 

ETidence, 298. Selectmen, 606. Usage, 647. 
Officer, 482. 
Limitations, 434. 
Pauper, 505, 506. 

Arbitration, 42. Practice, 556, 560. 
Minister, 458. Parish, 493. 
Limitations, 436. 
Frauds, Statute of, 367. 
New Trial, 474. 
Acency, 21. Amendment, 27. Judgment, 404. 

Lotteries, 441. Postmaster, 546. Verdict, 652. 
Arbitration, 38, 45. Bills, Ax. 110. 
Arbitration, 38. 
Poor Debtors, 536. 
Ways, 659. 

ETidence, 301. Witness, 671. 
Practice, 551 . Verdict, 651 . 

Digitized by 


Ti. 436, 

sin. lae, 

xiT. 417, 
xi. 202, 
X2i. 450, 


















Pitftitioii, 497. Re- 
Limitatioos, 430. 








xiii. 403, 

xxiii. 90, 
xiii. 381, 
zii. 308, 

vii. 162, 

Ti. 85, 

IT. 164, 

xix. 72, 

xxiii. 517, 

Tiii. 272, 

iii. 354, 

XX. 251, 

XT. 429, 

xriii. 225, 


BL — BE. 

Blake t. Glvk, Deed, 296. Ettemeat, 250. 

d Actions, 571. 
Blake t. Freeman, Abatement, 3. Aetione, &€. 11. 

Real Actiona, 573. 

Writ, 681. 

ETidence, 287. 

Practice, 559. Witneaa, 674. 

Joint Tenants, 4bc. 400. Partnerahip, 499. 

Frauds, Sutute ci, 366. New Trial, 476. 

SalTage, 596. 
Blakesburg t. Jefferson, Pauper, 516. 
Blanchard t. Baker, Aquatic Rights, 36. Joint Tenants, &e. 402. Li- 
cense, 426. MUls, 455. 
Blanekard t. Buoknam, Shipping, 610. 
Blanchard t. Chapman, Betterments, 100. 
Blanehajrd t. Comber- 
Town, 632, 633. 

Insurance, 397. Pleading, 594. 

BUis, Ac. 119, 120. 

Mortrage, 459, 460. 

Conmtion, 154. Contract, 172. Frauds, Statute 
of, 367. Tender, 627. 

Agency, 25. Fraud, ^. 359. Sale, 591. 

Blake t. HUl, 
Blake t. Howard, 
Blake t. Irish, 
Blake t. Nutter, 
Blake t. Parlin, 
Blake t. Patten, 

Blanchard t. Oyer, 
Blanchard t. Wood, 
Blaney t. Bearce, 
Blood T. Hardy, 

Blood T. Palmer, 
Bloomfield t. Skowhe- 

Bluehill Academy t. 

Bodfish T. Fox, 
Boies T. Blake, 
Boies T. McAllister, 





Pauper, 508. 

Boies T. Witherell, 
Bolster t. Cummings, 
Boody T. Keating, 
Boody T. i«uDt, 
Boody T. McKenney, 
Boody T. York, 







J 15, 



Contract, 166. 

Eridence, 287, 288. Exceptiona, 399. 

Passamaquoddy Indians, 504. 

Contract, 172. Damages, 208. ETidence, 990. 

New Trial, 475. 
Estoppel, 279. 
Practice, 557. 

Actions, dbc. 7. Larceny, 420. 
Limitations, 435. 
Evidence, 290, 292. Infant, 391. 

, Evidence, 294. Execution, 398. 

Boothbay t. Wiscasset, Costs, 193. Pauper, 510. 
Boothby t. Hathaway, Covenant, 199. ETidence, 309. Seizin, dbo.606. 
Bomeman t. Sid linger, Donatio Causa Mortis, 243. 

Bomeman t. Sidlinger, Actions, Ac. 9. Donatio Causa Mortis, 243. Ex- 
ecutors, Slc. 344. 
Bomeman t. Sidlinger, Donatio Causa Mortis, 243, 244. Witness, 676. 
Boston T. York, Costs, 193, 

Bowdoinham t. Rich- 
mond, Constitutional Law, 160. 
Bowes T. French, Arbitration, 46. 
Bowes T. Tibbetts, Apprentice, 36. 
Bowman t. HoudUtte, Fraud, Ac. 362. 
Mortgage, 467. 
Judgment, 404. Jurisdiction, 409. Jnstioe of the 

Peace, 411. 
Sale, 588. TroTer, 637. 
ETidence, 301. Lien, 429. 
Dower, 244. WiU,668. 
Bills, dk«. 109. Contract, 17L 
Limitations, 437. 
BettermenU, 99. Joint Tenants, Ac. 401. Seia- 

in, Ac. 605. 
Bills, dbc. 108. 
Law and Fact, 422. 
Probate Accounts, 564. 
Partnership, 499. 
Attachment, S2. 

Boyd T. Shaw, 
Boynton t. Fly, 

Boynton t. Veazie, 
Braekett t. Hayden, 
Brackett t. Leighton, 
Braekett t. Mountlbrt, 
Brackett v. Mountfort, 
Bracken t. Noicross, 

zxT. 397, Bradbury t. Blake, 

xviii,^ 64L. Bradbury t. Falmouth, 

'XT. 212/^ Bradbury t. JetTerds, 
xxi. 117, Bradbury t. Smith, 
Tiii. 130, Bradbury t. Taylor, 


Digitized by 































IT. 391, Bradburj t. White, 
xxii. 463, Brmdeen t. Brooks, 
xii. 15, Bradfiurd ▼. BooknuA, 

Bradibrd t. Gary, 
Bradfi>rd ▼. Haynet, 
Bradibrd t. McLellan, 
Bradibrd v. Paul, 
Bradley t. BoyntoD, 
Bradley t. Bradley, 
Bradley ▼. Gary, 
Bradley v. Cba»e, 
Bradley t. Davis, 
Bradley t. Davis, 
Bradley ▼. Rice, 
Bragg V. GreeDleaiJ 

Brannin t. Johnson, 
Brewer v. Curtis, 
Brewer v. Smith, 
Bridges v. Bridges, 
Bridgton v. Bennett, 
Brigcs T. Fiske, 
Brignam v. Welch, 
Brmley y. Spring, 

yii. 70, Brinley y. TibbeU, 

i. 83, Bristol y. Marblehead, 

xii. 81, Brock y. Sturdivant, 

iii. 177, Brown's case, 

yii. 356, Brown y. Atwood, 

317, Brown y. Brown, 

537, Brown y. Crockett, 

30, Brown y. Daggett, 

357, Brown y. Foes, 

876, Brown t. Gammon, 

136, Brown y. Gay, 

107, Brown y. Gifmore, 

165, Brown y. Grordon, 

164, Brown y. Haven, 

399, Brown v. Houdlette, 

396, Brown v. Keith, 

351, Brown v. Leavitt, 

391, Brown v. Heady, 

505, Brown v. Osgood, 

359, Brown v. Veazie, 

411, Brown v. Ware, 

453, Brown v. Watson, 

38, Brunswick v. Litchfield, 

508, Brunswick v. McKeen, 

xviii. 340, Bryant v. Damariscotta 

xxiv. 304, Bryant v. Johnson, 

xxii. 360, Bryant v. Mansfield, 
xxvi. 84, Bryant v. Moore, 

six. 383, Bryant v. Tucker, 

XI v. 














xvi. 961, 

xxiv. 43, 

xiv. 384, 

^. 163, 
xi. 9, 

Bryer v. Weston, 
Bubier v. Bubier, 
Buck y. Appleton, 

Buck y. Hardy, 
Buck v. Pike. 

BE.— BU. 

Contract, 176. Equity, 961. 

Lien, 439. Sale, 593. 

Actions, dx. 8. BUls, dbc 133, 195, 130. PImuI- 

ing, 593. 
Parish, 494. 

Devise, dec. 339. WUl, 668. 
Attachment, 83. Evidence, 303. Officer, 483. 
Bastardy, 98. Law and Fact, 431. 
Joint Tenants, Slc, 401. Release, &c. 579. 
Divorce, 343. Evidence, 306. 
Guaranty, 374. 
Equity, 357, 363, 965, 370. 
Trespass, 635. 

BilU, Ac, 116, 118, 181. Practice, 554. 
Deed, 333. 
Actions, Ac. 8. Amendment, 38. Bills, Ac. 198, 

Damages, 307. 
Costs, 193. Witness, 673. 
Sale, 588. 

Replevying a person, 583. 
Attorney, 86. Exceptions, 333. Pauper, 515. 
Amendment, 39. Betterments, 101. 
Real Actions, 574. 
Assignment, 56. Fraud, &c. 363. Mortgage, 469. 

Sale, 588. 
Contract, 173. 
Officer, 481. 
Evidence, 393. 
Malicious Mischltff, 441. 
Costs, 191, 193. Frauds, statute of, 365. Wit- 

ness, 670. 
Libel and Slander, 434. 
Attachment, 79, 80. Replevin, 580. 
Bills, A^;. 107. 
Practice, 551, 558. 
Bond, 138, 139. Condition, 159. 
Deed, 331 . Plan, 531 . Seizin, ^kc. 603. 
Tender, 636. 

Abatement, 6. Officer, 481. 
Efiuity, 359, 361. 

Limitations, 433, 437. Poor Debtors, 544. 
Arbitration, 43. Costs, 193. 
Arbitration, 39,43,47. 
Deed, 339. 

New Trial, 476. Practice, 554. 
Tax, 633, 634. 
Trespass, 634, 635. 
Poor Debtors, 536, 540. 
Marriace, 443. Pauper, 505. 
New Trial, 476. Pleading, 587. Presumption, 


Bank, 93. Bills, Ac. 113. Currency, 804. 
Audita Querela, 89. Execution, 334, 387. 
Equity, 355. Frauds, Statute of, 367. 
Agency, 30, 31. 
Execution, 336. Landlord and Tenant, 415. 

Real Actions, 573. Seizin, 6lc. 603, 640. 
Agency, 14. Evidence, 384. Partnership, 60S. 
Equity, 354, 367. 
Bills, Ac. 109, 118, 135, 131. Evidence, 393. 

Witness, 670. 
Amendment, 31. Execution, 385, 337, 330. 
Equity, 361, 863. 

Digitized by 


TAMJB or ckwn. 














zzii. 495, 

ziz. 371, 

ZTiii. 179, 

zrii. 50, 

ziz. SSS, 

zii. 345, 
iii. 191, 
zz. 281, 

zii. 378, 

ii. 367, 

ziii. 459, 

ziT. 132; 

zrii. 344, 

ziii. 397, 

in. 239, 

▼i. 268, 

zzYi. 484, 
ziii. 303, 

Tiii. 113, 

ii. 361, 

zii. 407, 
zii. 458, 

Buckley ▼. Woodiam, 
Bocknam t. Buekaam, 
Buekiuun t. Nwk, 
Boekflpoft T. SpoffonI, 
Bugbee t. Sargent, 
Bugnon t. Howes, 
Balfineh t. Balch, 
Bollard t. Hinkley, 
Bollard t. Hinkley, 
BaUen t. Baker, 
Booker t. Hall, 
Borbank t. Berry, 
Borbaok t. Goold, 
Borditt T. Hant, 
Boigeae t. Bosworth, 
Borgeaa t. Lane, 
Bomham t. Brown, 
fiomham t. Chapman, 
Bomham t. Howe, 

Bomham t. Spring, 
Bomham t. Toothaker, 
Bomham t. Tocker, 
Bomham t. Webeter, 
Bomham t. Webeter, 

Borrill t. Martin, 
Barney t. Gilmore, 
Boasey t. Grant, 

Bnainy t. LeoTitt, 
Bomey t. Looe, 
Boaiey t. Page, 
Boaaey t. Page, 
Boswell T. Bicknell, 
Botler T. Howe, 
Botler T. Little, 
Botler T. Ricker, 

Botler T. Sterena, 
Botler T. Tufta, 
Botraan's caae, 
Botman t. Abbott, 

Batman t. Homey, 
Bymet t. Hoyt, 

BU. — CA. 

Practice, 551. 

Pitftition, 497. 

Damages, 306. Fraods, Statote of, 368. Sale, 502. 

ETidenoe, 284. Pariah, 493. Town, 630, 631. 

DeTiae, &c. 340, 341. Eqoity, 260, 264. 

Ezecotion, 328, 330. 

Damages, 205. Officer, 487. 

Mortgage, 463. 

Frand, Ac. 360. 

Error, 271. Militia, 449, 452, 453. 

Poor Debtors, 537, 546. 

Damages, 211. Poor Debtors, 539. 

Estoppel, 275. 

Mortage, 472, 473. TroTar, 6S7. 

Poor Debtors, 538, 540. Prac- 

. Law and Fact, 422. 

Set-off, 606. 

Billa, Ac. 104, 133. 

Assumpsit, 65. 

ETidence, 295 

Bastardy, 98, { 

Evidence, 307. Partnership, 502. Witaasa, 678. 

Bills, Ac. 125. Limitations, 434. 

Apprentice, 36. 

Evidence, 298. 

tice, 558. 
Bills, Ac. 114. 
Ezceptions, 321 
BUls, Ac. 126. 
Bills, Ac. 413, R9: 
Agency, 15. Bank, 93. 

Coniict of Laws, 155. 
Costs, 191. Mills, 457. 
Town, 629. 
Deed, 225. Grants, Ac. 373. Plan, 521. Real 

Actions, 574, 575. 
Assessors, 49. Taz, 623, 634. 
Evidence, 308. 
Eqoity, 269. 
Mortgage, 460. 
Sale, 592. 
Limitations, 434. 
Devise, Ac. 237. 
Ezecotors, 4bc. 340, 342. Penalty, 518. Probata 

Accoonts, 563. Statotes, 615. 
Deed, 216, 217, 218, 219. 

Mortgage, 470. Practice, 552, 553. Witness, 671. 
Indictment, 385. Innholders, Ac. 391. 
Assompsit, 71. Error, 271. Pleading, 533, 534, 

528. Referees, 578. 
Damages, 206. 
Costs, 191. 
























Calais v. Dyer, 
Calder v. Billington, 
Caldwell v. Cole, 
Call V. Barker, 
Call T. Chapman, 
Call T. Leisner, 

MUls, 457. 

Bills, Ac. 106, 112, 131. 

Ezceptions, 319. Witness, 672. 

Deed, 221 . Partition, 495. 

Set-off, 607. 

Mortga|e, 468, 

Camden t. LinoolnTille, Limitations, 434. 
Campbell v. Knights, Dower, 244, 246, 

Campbell v. Knights, 
Campbell v. Pettengill, 
Campbell v. Proctor, 

Paoper, 513. 

Estoppel, 277. Mortgage, 463, 

Ezecotors, Ac. 338. 
Bills, Ac. 112, 113. 
Amendment, 27. Landlord and Tenant, 415, 418. 

Digitized by 




xi. 103, Campbell t. Raakint, 
xvi. 117, Campbell ▼. Thompeon, 

iii. 173, Canaan y. Bloomileki, 

Ti. 395, Canal Bank v. Cox, 

xix. 288, Canrill t. Sewall, 

xiii. 363, Carle ▼. Delesdernier, 

ix. 104, Carle t. White, 

xW. 393, Carleton t. Tyler, 

iii. 350, Carlisle y. Burlej, 



Carll y. Batman, 



Carr y. Dole, 



Carr y. Farley, 



Carter y. Bradley, 



Carter y. Carter, 



Carter y. Thomas, 



Carter y. Thompson, 



Cary y. Osgood, 



Casco Bank v. Hills, 



Casco Bank y. Mussey, 



Cate v. Thayer, 



Cayford's case. 



Central Bank y. Allen, 



Chadboome y. Straw, 



Chadwick v. Perkins, 



Chadwick y. Webber, 



Chalmers y. Hack, 



Chamberlain y. Bussey, 



Chamberlain y. Dover, 



Chamberlain v. Harrod, 



Chamberlain y. Reed, 



Chandler v. Furbish, 



Chandler v. Goodridge, 



Chandler y. Morton, 



Chapman y. BnUer, 



Chapman y. Crane, 



Chapman y. Shaw, 



Chapman y. Shaw, 



Charles y. Dana, 



Chase v. Bradley, 



Chase y. Bradley, 



Chase y. Dwinal, 



Chase y. Fish, 



Chase y. Garvin, 



Chase v. Oilman, 

xxy. 341, Chase y. Palmer, 

xi. 138, Chase y. Stevens, 

xxyi. 666, Chase y. Walker, 

xi. 143, Chesley y. Brown, 

xxi. 60, Chesley y. Welch, 

xxiv. 458, Chick y. Pillsbury, 

XX. 462, Chick y. Trevett, 

iv. 471, Child v. Ficket, 

xxiii. 74, Childs y. Ham, 

CA. — CH. 

Amendment, 37. Minor, 468. 
Actions, Ac. U. Complaint, 161. Eyideaoe, 893. 
Justice of the Pewse, 413, 413. New Trial, 
477. Peddling, 618. Praoboe, 663. 
Panper, 611. 
Assignment, 65. 

PariA, 493. Trespasa, 634. Waste, 654. 
Arrest, 48. Officer, 487. Trespass, 636. 
Bills, 4bc. 130. Evidenoe, 316. 
Covenant, 303. 

Bailment, 90. Execnlons 4bo. 343; 348. Pro- 
perty, 667. Sale, 695. Witness, 673. 
Dower, 346, 346, 348. Mortgage, 463, 467. 
Assignment, 57. 

Attachment, 80. Notioe and Demand, 479. 
Bills, dbc. 115,117. 
MiUtia, 448, 449. 
Will, 667. 

Amendment, 36, 38. Exceptions, 319. 
Evidence, 298. Poor Debtors, 536, 539. 
Partnership, 498, 603. 
Bills, Ac. 115. 
Statutes, 614. 
Marriage, 444. 
Bills, £c. 117, 126, 138. Deposition, 835. Prac 

tice, 651. 
Trespass, 634. 

Evidence, 391. TrMts,646. 
Deed, 316. 
Equity, 853. 

Deed, 316. Partition, 495. Waldo Patent, 663. 
Amendment, 32. Evidence, 296. Town, 631. 
Shipping, 61 1 . 

Assumpsit, 63. Lien, 437. Shipping, 614. 
Execution, 335. 
Partition, 497. 

Recognizance, 677. Usury, 649. Witness, 670. 
Betterments, 101 . Equity, 357, 366. 
Apprentice, 36. Guardian, 377. Indenture, 383. 
Abatement, 6. Pleading, 637. 
Assumpsit, 67. 
Assumpsit, 69. 

Contract, 179. Trustee Process, 640,644. 
Contract, 183. Execution, 329. Executors, Ac. 

341. Trustee Process, 642. 
Assumpsit, 64. Booms, 143. Duress, 249. 
Arrest, 48. Duress, 850. Officer, 487. Plead- 
ing, 633. 

Equity, 353. Partnership, 600. 

Amendment, 31. Execution, 334. Judgment, 
403. Officer, 483. 

Eouity, 353, 354, 360. Husband and Wife, 381. 
Mortgage, 466. 

Officer, 484. Replevin, 581. 

Deed, 220. Judgment, 405. 

Costo, 194. Evidence, 300. Penalty, 619. Ver- 
dict, 650. 

Condition, 153. Penalty, 519. 

Bills, ^. 118. 

Agency, 23. Bills, Ac. 107. 

Deed, 227. 

Amendment, 33. Attachment, 78, 84. Judg. 
ment, 406. Officer, 484, 489. 

Digitized by 





xL 341, 

jonri. 178» 

ziii. 64» 

zzu. sa; 

z^ii. 41 19 
ii. 30&, 
iii. 8I69 

China t. SoqUiwiok, 
Chum, T. dMitkwick, 
Christ's Cliurali ▼. Wood- 
ChnrehUl ▼. Bailey, 
Churchill y. Crane, 
Churchill T. Hatch, 
Clap T. Day, 
Clapp T. Balch, 

>▼. 94S9 CImpp w. Hi— Ml, 

xi. 83; 

XTiii. 264, 

X. 6d, 

x^. 246, 

iu. 357, 

▼i. 296, 

▼ii. 348, 

xxiu. 221, 

XX. 18, 

xxni. 560, 

XX ti. 500, 

xrii. 175, 

ii. 143, 

vi. 259, 

XTU. 349, 

!▼. 1, 

Clapp T. 
Clapp V. 
Olapp ▼. 
Clark V. 
Olark T. 
Olark Y. 
Olark T. 
Olark ▼. 
Olark V. 
Olark ▼. 
Olark T. 
Olark ▼. 
Olark T. 
Olark T. 
Clark T. 










































▼. Foee, 

Clement v. Durgin, 
Clement ▼. Divgin, 

Clinton t. Fly, 
Clinton ▼. York, 
Cloogh Y. Tenney, 
Cobb Y. Billings, 
Cobb Y. HeskeU, 
Cobb Y. Little, 
Cobb Y. Lont, 
Cobb Y. Standish, 
Cobb Y. SteYens, 
Cobom Y. Murray, 
Cobam y. Ware, 
Cochrane y. Libbr, 
Codnuui Y. Lowell, 

Codman y. Stroat, 
Coffin *s case, 
C€rttiM Y. Backaam, 
Coffin Y. Chase, 
Coffin Y. Coffin, 
Coffin Y. Collina, 
Coffin Y. Herrick, 
Cogswell Y. Reed, 
Colbam y. Mason, 
Colby Y. Moody, 
Colby Y. Norton, 
Colby Y. Russell, 
Cole Y. Bodfish, 
Cole Y. McGlathry, 
Colley Y. Merrill, 
Colson Y. Bonzey, 
Comings t. Stuart, 
Comins y. Bradbury, 

CH. — GO. 

Witness, 674. 
Mills,466. Way, 666. 

Town, 630. Way, 659. 

Attachment, 74. EYidanee, 907. WitnaM, 676. 

Practice, 657. 

Poor Debtors, 536, 539. 

Actions, 4bc. 7. Bills, &o. 139. Pleading, 598. 

Abatement, 4, 5. Amendment, 96. Exceptions, 

319. Writ, 681. 
Aihitratien, 46. Bills, Ac. 197, 131. ExMptioM, 

399. Usui7,648. 
Limitations, 439. Praotioe, 554. 
Forcible Entry, 354. Landlord and Tenant, 418. 
Appeal, 34, 35. Mortgage, 467. 
Bills, 4bc. 114, 190, m. EYidenee, 986. 
Assignment, 50, Attachment, 61. 
- - PleadiM,539. 
Surety, 618. 
Sale, 589. 

Partnership, 509. 
Bills, Ac. 107, 134. 

Mortgage, 463. 

Officer, 483, 489. 

Attachment, 78. 

Fraud, dec. 363. 

Deed, 918. 

Limitations, 434. 

Agency, 15, 19. 

EYidenee, 311. 

Amignment, 59. 

Husband and Wife, 380. 

Bond, 140. 

Auction, 88. Frauds, Statute of; 364. Pleading, 

Arbitration, 40, 41. 

Deposition, 934. EYidenee, 308. Frauds, Stat- 
ute of, 367. License, 496. Witness, 673. 

Contract, 189. 

Emancipation, 951. Pauper, 510, 511, 519. 

Action on Case, 19. Judgment, 404. 

Innholders, Ac. 393. 

Sale, 589. 

Bills, Ac, 191. Estoppel, 978. Guaranty, 373. 

Agency, 14. 

Way, 663. 

Assumpsit, 70. Contract, 189. 

Exceptions, 318. 

Amendment, 30. Bankruotcy, 96. Bills, Ac. 199. 

Dower, 949. EYidenee, 990. 

Court of Sessions, 198. Jail, 400. Officer, 486. 
Poor Debtors, 534. 

Arbitration, 44. Exceptions, 399. 

Officer, 490. 

Limitations, 439. 

Officer, 481. 

Attorney, 86. Limitations, 433. 

Corporation, 188. EYidenee, 985, 308. 

Jail, 400. Poor Debtors, 549. 

Estoppel, 275. Partition, 497. 

Joint Tenants, Ac, 401. Seizin, Slc, 605, 606. 

Amendment, 31. Poor Debtors, 536. 

Estoppel, 979. 

Assessors, 49. 

Actions, Ac, 9. Bond, 149. Practice, 557. 

Limitations, 436. 

Agency, 15. Exceptions, 318, 319. Practice, 554. 

Shipping, 610, 611. 

Agency, 94. Bettermento, 101 . 

Constitutional Law, 169. 

Digitized by 




zziii. 280, 

iz. 98, 

zziii. 908, 

ZTi. 268, 
ZT. 431, 

ii. 13, 
ZTiii. 260, 

Commereial Bank r. 

8t. Croiz Mta. Co. 
Commercial Bank v. > 

Wilkina, ) 

Comstock T. Smith, 

Conner r. Lewb, 
ConTene ▼. Damaiii- 

Cook T. Bennett, 
Cook y. Lotkrop, 

ziii. 250, Cool t. Crommot, 

Ti. 124, 
ziT. 4Q4, 

ZTu. 404, 
ziz. 260, 

zzir. 73, 

iz. 19, 
TU. 141, 

viu. 411, 
zii. 312, 

ziii. 288, 
ziv. 475, 
zui. 321, 
zzii. 433, 
ziz. 184, 
ziz. 409, 
▼i. 140, 
zu. 222, 

T. 240, 

z. 374, 

zziv. 79, 

zzv. 267, 
vi. 282, 

ziv. 205, 

zzvi. 504, 

zz. 387, 

zzi. 414, 

zziii. 104, 

zzi. 492, 

zii. 34, 

ziii. 229, 
zii. 354, 

▼. 213, 

ziT. 48, 

ZTi. 27, 

T. 419, 

zziii. 413, 

zziii. 392, 

zii. 190, 
T. 443, 
iv. 134, 

Cool T. Gardiner, 
Coomba r. Emery, 
Coomba t. Warren, 
Cooper, petitioner. 
Cooper ▼. Pa^e, 

Copeland t. Bean, 
Copeland t. Wadleigh, 

Copeland t. Weld, 
Copp T. Lamb, 

Copp Y. Lamb, 
Corois V. Sager, 
Corinna v. Ezeter, 

Comiih ▼. Parsonifield, Pauper, 516. 

CO. — CR. 

Bilifl, 4tc. 115. Corporation, 186. 

Attachment, 79. Officer, 489. Partaerahip, 499. 

Witnesa, 674. 
Billa, Ac. 108, 109. Collateral Secnrity, 149. 

Ezceptiona, 322. New Trial, 477. Sale, 591. 
ETidence, 293. Lien, 487, 428. Tniata,646. 

Amendment, 28. 

Practice, 561. 

Abatement, 3, 4, 5. Bond, 140. Notice and De- 
mand, 479. Replevin, 581. 

Fence, 348. Surreror, Ac. 680. Treapaaa, 634. 
Way, 658, 662. 

Contract, 176. 

Contract, 166. Wood and Bark, 680. 

Equity, 253, 257. 

Probate Court, 566. 

Billa, &€. 114, 136. Damacea, 808. Guaranty, 

Amendment, 30. Pleading, 531. 

Ezceptions, 319. Frauda, Statute of; 365. New 
Tnal, 476. 

Asaignment, 55, 56. 

Evidence, 299. Proprietor! of Common Landa, 
568, 569. Real Actions, 572. 

Bettermenta, 101. Set-off, 608. 

Damages, 211. Poor Debtors, 585, 587, 543. 

Evidence, i^9. Pauper, 512. 

Cornish v. Pease, 
Corson v. Tuttle, 
Cottle V. Cottle, 
Cottrill V. Myrick, 

Cousins, ez parte. 
Cowan V. Adams, 
Cowan V. Wheeler, 

Cowan V. Wheeler, 
Cowell V. Great Falls 

Man. Co. 
Coz V. Stevens, 
Coz V. Walker, 
Crabtree v. Clark, 

Crafta v. Ford, 
Crag|[in v. Bailey, 
Cra^n v. Carleton, 
Craig V. Fesaenden, 

Cram v. Aiken, 

Town, 631. 
Bond, 140. 

BasUrdy, 97. 
Verdict, 651. 
Constitutional Law, 162. Evidence, 281, 284, 

291. Fisheries, 350. Record, 578. Town, 638. 
Guardian, 375. 

Agency, 21. Frauds, Statute of, 370. 
Ezceptions, 318, 321. Judgment, 403. Practioe, 

Equity, 255, 262, 264. 

Appeal, 34. MUls, 456. 

Amendment, 32. Militia, 448. 

Parish, 493. Pleading, 523. Trusts, 647. 

Bills, Ac. 134. Evidence, 282, 300. Law and 

Fact, 423. 
Ezecution, 326, 329. 
Bankruptcy, 95. Poor Debtors, 545. 
Evidence, 296. Partnership, 503. 
Evidence, 307. Indorser of Writ, 388. Oflieer, 

Shipping, 613. 

Cram v. Bangor House, Assumpsit, 69. Constitutional Law, 163. Cor- 

Cram v. Bumham, 
C/ram v. Sherburne, 
Crane v. Marshall, 
Crane v. Roberts, 
Crehore v. Maaon, 
Crocker v. Getchell, 

Crockett v. Dodge, 
Crockett v. Ross, 
Crofton v. Usley, 

poration, 186, 187. 
Bills, du;. 129. Marriage, 443. 
Amendment, 28. Bills, Ac. 119. Practice, 557. 
Evidence, 309, 312, 313. 
Contract, 175. 

Limitations, 435. Sututes, 617. 
Agency, 22. Bills, &c. 107, 115, n^ 117, 134. 

Evidence, 294. 
Shipping, 613. 

Husband and Wife, 381. Pleading, 528. 
Will, 667. 

Digitized by 




vi. 48, 
xTiii. 344, 

XXT. 131, 
zjuii. 339, 

Y. 463, 

XX. 61, 

XTU. 369, 

xxi. 499, 

xvL 121, 
xxiii. 156, 

i. 376, 

xxri. 40, 

X. 335, 

xix. 393, 
xL 335, 
W. 459, 

Ti. 406, 
iii. 51, 
xxri. 453, 
xxvL 397, 
XX. 435, 
xii. 466, 

XTiii. 59, 
xui. 216, 

xii. 499, 

xxL 525, 

XXT. 383, 

xxiii. 9, 

xxTi. 306, 

ii. 266, 

xxi. 122, 

xxi. 540, 

XT. 159, 

xiii. 377, 

XX. 213, 

XTiii. 127, 

ii. 181, 

in. 38, 

xiii. 474, 

XT. 237, 

CroAon t. lltley, 
Crommet t. Peanon, 

Crooker t. Appleton, 
Crooker t. Pendleton, 

Croeby t. Alljrn, 
Crosby t. Bradbory, 
Crosby t. Cliase, 
Crosby t. Harlow, 

Crosby t. Snow, 
Crosby t. Wyatt, 

Cross T. Peters, 
Crossmsn t. Moody, 
Crowell T. Gletson, 

Crowell T. Merrick, 
Crumpton t. Solon, 
Cumberland t. North 

Cumberland t. Prince, 
Cummings* case, 
Cummings t. Chandler, 
CnmmingB t. Dennett, 
Cunning nam t. Turner, 
Cunningham t. Ward- 
Currier t. Brackett, 
Corrier t. Earl, 

Curtis T. Deering, 
Curtis T. Treat, 
Cushing T. Ayer, 
Cusbing T. Gay, 
Cashing t. Longfellow, 
Cushman t. Blanchard, 
Cushman t. Marshall, 
Cushman t. Waite, 

Cutler T. GroTer, 
Cutler T. Pope, 
Coder T. Thnrlo, 
Cutter T. Copeland, 

Cutter T. Tole, 
Cutter T. Tole, 
Cutts T. Gordon, 
Cntts T. Hussey, 

CR. — DA. 

Amendment, 30. Costs, 191. Ezeentors, 4ko. 343. 
EWdenoe, 298. Exceptdons, 320. Practice, 660. 

Selectmen, 607. Way, 658, 669. 
Agency, 15^20. Deposition, 235. 
^ " Grants, Ac. 373. 

Witness, 671. 

ETidence, 281 

Attachment, 76. 
Deed, 231. 

Estoppel, 276. Mortgage, 464. 
Landlord and Tenant, 419. Mortgage, 468. 

tee Process, 643. 
Innholders, <ke, 392. * 
Bills, Ac. 122, 124. Limitations, 435, 439. 

ty, 618. 
Contract, 171. Sale, 593. Witness, 671. 
Indorser of Writ, 389. 
Complaint, 151. Deed, 219. Duress, 250. 

tice of the Peace, 412. 
Actions, Ac. 7. Larceny, 420. TroTer, 637. 
Way, 663. 

Arbitration, 37, 40, 43. 

Statutes, 615. 

Complaint, 151. Criminal Law, 202. 

Exceptions, 323. Penal^, 519. 

Contract, 199. Frauds, Statute of, 369. 

Poor Debtors, 536. 



i. 158, Cutts T. King, 

T. 482, Cutts T. King, 

xir. 326, Cutts t. York Man. Co., 

XTiii. 190, CntU t. York Man. Co.t 

Bills, Ac. 112, 130. ETidence, 292. 

Deposition, 234 Officer, 490. 

DoTise, Ac. 237. Estoppel, 275. Landlord and 
Tenant, 414, 419. 

CoTenant, 199. Damages, 209. Deed, 217. 

Assumpsit, 67. Landlord and Tenant, 420. 

Deed, 218. Mortgage, 465, 467, 468. 

Certiorari, 145, 146. Way, 656. 

Damages, 207. Tax, 624. 

Damages, 208. Deed, 220. 

Bills, Ac. 123. Contract, 171. Sale, 604. 

Bond, 142. Estoppel, 277. ETidence, 294. 
Poor Debtors, D41. 

Arbitration, 46. Ex^tions, 319. Reibrees, 878. 

Frauds, Statute of, 367. Sale, 590. 

Assumpsit, 68. Shipping, 611. 

Acency, 15, 20. Fraud, 4^. 363. Moitege, 470. 
Notice and Demand, 479. Witness, 671, 677. 

Militia, 445, 451. 

Militia, 445, 451. 

Assumpsit, 71, 72. 

Impounding, 382. Statutes, 615. Winter Har- 
bor Beach, 669. 

Debt, 212. Poor Debtors, 536. Reoogusaace, 

Deed, 222. Real Actions, 574, 575. 

Assignment 51. Mortgage, 467. 

Agency, 19. Deed, 216. ETidence, 293, 316. 
Mortgage, 467, 468. 



I 196, Daggett t. Adams, 
xxii. 227, Daggett t. Bartlett, 
lix, 373, DaggeU t. ETerett, 

Fraud, Ac. 362. 
Damages, 211. 
Collector, 150. 

Officer, 487. Pleading, 530. 
Poor Debtors, 635. 

Digitized by 



TABLE or CA»8. 

zxii. 847, 

xxiv. 663. 

Ti. 171, 

Ti. 148, 

Ti. 89, 

zxu. 344, 

XX. 307, 

Dain t. Cowing* 
Dale V. Gower, 
Dall T. KimbaU, 
Damon's, aliai Flint's, 

Dana ▼. Coomba, 
Dana t. Sawyer, 
Danfbrth v. Kobeits, 

xxii. 184, Darling y. March, 

xyiii. 405, 

XT. 176, 

xxu. 24, 

X. 317, 

viii. 17, 

xyii. 141, 
xxiy. 349, 

Darling y. Rellins, 
Darling y. Simpaon, 
Davenport v. Davis, 
Davenport y. Hallowell, Assumpsit, 60, 
Davenport v. Wood- 
bridge, Assignment, 60. 
Davis V. Bath, Surplus Revenue, 620 
Davis y. Bradford school 

DA. — DE. 

Joint Tenants, f«. 402. Trover, 637. 
Evidence, 814. Witness, 679. 
Parish, 494. 

Indictment, 385. Marriage, 443, 444. 

Infant, 390. 

Bills, AAi. 118. 

Equity, 253. Fraud, Ac. 358. Mortgage, 462. 

Witness, 672. 
Bills, Ac, 120. Evidence, 302. Partnership, 603. 

Usury, 648, 649. Witness, 670, 675. 
Execution, 330, 332, 335. 

Actions, 4rc. 10. Fisheries, 350. Pleading, 524. 
Bills, Ac. 134. 

Contract, 167. Town, 630. 




xvii. 387, 

xU. 447, 

xxii. 254, 

xxiii. 69, 

iii. 27, 
xiii. 424, 

iv. 337, 
xiu. 2(», 

xi. 434, 
viii. 365, 

xiii. 165, 








xvi. 17, 
XV. 247, 
iu. 338, 

xxii. 488, 
vi. 404, 

xxv. 51, 
iv. 191, 
XX. 150, 

ii. 191, 

Davis V. Emerson, 
Davis v. French, 

Davis V. Go wen, 
Davb v. Gowen, 
Davis V. Greene, 
Davis V. Keene, 
Davis v. McArthur, 
Davis v. Moore, 
Davis y. Smith, 
Davis V. Thompson, 

Davlin v. Hill, 
Daj V. Stetson, 

Day v. Swann, 
Deane v. Annis, 
Deane v. Coffin, 
Deane v. Washburn, 
Dearborn v. Parks, 

Dearborn v. Turner, 
Dearing v. Heard, 
Decker v. Freeman, 
Deering v. Chapman, 
Deering v. Cox, 

Schools, Ac, 599. 

Frauds, Statute of, 364, 

Practice, 557. 

Assumpsit, 6 
Surety, 619. 
Executors, {rc. 340, 344. 

Bills, ^. 119. Witness, 674. 
Bills, dEC. 113, 115, 119. 
Law and Fact, 421. Nonsuit, 478. 
Evidence,. 314. 
Indorser of Writ, 388. 
Frauds, Statute of, 368, 369. 
Limitations, 436. 
Forcible Entry, 354. Landhu-d and Tenant, 418, 

419. Lease, 423. 
Bills, ^h:c. 103, 130. 
Constitutional Law, 161. Ferry, 349. Petition, 

Partnership, 502. Pleading, 523. 
Assumpsit, 68. Parent and Child, 491. 
Arbitration, 41, 46. 

Collector, 150. Schools, &c. 597. Town, 630. 
Assumpsit, 65. Frauds, Statute of, 365. Interest, 

399. Limitations, 432. 
Sale, 592. 
Surveyor, &c. 620. 

Deed, 214. Proprietors of Common Lands, 668. 
Bills, &c. 107. Liquor, 439. 
_ . „ _ , Assignment, 55. 

Deering v. Long Wharf, Deed, 232, 233. Flats, 353. 

~ • '- -^0. 

285, 301. Fraud, 4bc. 361. Seizin, 
127, 129. Judgment, 407. Pleading, 
Law and Fact, 422. Seizin, &o. 
Practice, 553. Witness, 679. 

Delesdemier v. Mowry, Evidence, 


Dennett v. Chick, 

viii. 239, Dennett v. Crocker, 

xvii. 19, Dennett v. Dow, 

xix. 110, Dennett V. Dow, 

xiv. 341, Dennett v. Hopkinson, 

vi. 460, Dennett v. Kneeland, 

vii. 399, Dennett v. Nevers, 

vii. 150, Dennett v. Short, 

XV. 27, Dennett v. Wellington, 

iv. 541, Dennison's case, 

zz. 125, Dennison v. Thomaston 
M. F. Ins. Co. 

Bills, Ac. 

Evidence, 284. 

New Trial, 474. 
Costs, 190. 
Return, 584. Way, 657, 658. 
Bastardy, 97, 98. 

Assumpsit, 62. Costs, 191. Town, 632. 
Bills, dLc. 110. Contract, 177. 
Evidence, 287. 
Appeal, 35. 

Insurance, 396, 398. 

Digitized by 




xxTi. 149, 
Tui. 396, 

lY. 4ia, 

xvii. 418, 

xz. 453, 

xi. 50, 

xviii. 74, 

xxi. 963, 

V. 127, 

xxi. 433, 

iii. ls»5, 






xiiL 136, 

xrii. 249, 

Tii. 48, 
























xj. 422, 

ix. Ill, 

vn. 94, 

ii. 163, 



Denny t. Gilman, 
Detcmdillas v. Harris, 
Dethon t.' Eaton, 
DeWitt y. Moolton, 
Dickey t. Linscott, 
Dickinaon t. Bean, 
Dillingham v. Codman, 
Dillingham y. Weaton, 
Dingley y. Robinaon, 
Dinamore y. Dinsmore, 
Dixmont y. Biddefbrd, 
Doak v. Swan, 
Dockham y. Parker, 
Dodge y. Fams worth. 
Dodge y. Bartol, 
Doc^e y. Hills, 
Dodgo v. Kellock, 
Dodge y. Kellock, 
Doe y. Flake, 
Doe y. Warren, 
Dolbter y. Norton, 
Dolbier y. Wing, 
Dole y. Allen, 
Dole y. Hajden, 
Dolloff y. Hardy, 

Donnell y. Clark, 
Donnell y. Thompson, 
Dore y. Billings, 
Dore y. Hight, 
Dorkray y. Noble, 

DE. — DU. 

Eqnity,.256, 266, 271. 
Bills, Ac, 108, 109. Shipping, 611, 612. 
Limitations, 437. 
Deed, 817, 218. 
Contract, 173. 
Exeontors, Ac. 342, 344. 
Scire Facias, 600. 
Executors, Ac. 342, 345. 
Estoppel, 278. Fraud, Ac. 362. 
Limitations, 437, 438. 
Marriage, 443. Pauper, 511. 
Partnership, 496. 
Landlord and Tenant, 417. 
Evidence, 294. Execution, 327, 328, 329, 330. 
Shipping, 613. 
Apprentice, 36. 

Pleading, 525, 526. Recognixance, 577. 
Justice of the Peace, 411. 
Execution, 331. 
Interest, 399. 

Bond, 137. Contract, 171. Evidence, 301. 
Arbitration, 43. 
Evidence, 309. Militia, 451 . 
Arbitration, 44. Assumpsit, 65. 
Proprietors of Common Lands, 569, 570. Tres- 
pass, 636. 
Prescription, 561, 562. 
Covenant, 199. 
Schools, Ac. 598, 599. 



Damages, 207. 

Mortgage, 463, 464. Tender, 626. 
Dorrance v. Hutchinson, Attorney, 87. Deposition, 234, 235. 
Douglas v. Winslow, Attachment, 75. Partnership, 499. 
*^ -^ - . Evidence, 312. ~ 

Pauper, 514. 

Seizin, &c. 604. 

Certiorari, 145. 

Assumpsit, 59. 

Pauper, 514. 







Dover v. Deer isle, 

Dover v. Paris, 

Dow V. Plummer, 

Dow v. True, 

Downing v. Freeman, 

Doyle V. White, 

Draper v. Orono, 

Dresser v. Witherle, 

Drew v. Wadleigh, 

Drink water v. Gray, 

Drinkwater v.Portland ) Attachment, 75 

Marine Railway, ) ation, 187. 
Drinkwater v. Sawyer, Deed, 228. 
Drinkwater v. Tebbetts, Bills, &c. 113, 119, 129 
Dmmmond v. Churchill, Bond, 139, 140 

Poor Debtors, 538. 

Evidence, 317. 
Frauds', Statute of, 366. Mortgage, 462. 
Actions, Ac. 10. Way, 660. 
Costs, 194. Practice, 549. Verdkt, 650. 
Witness, 679. 
Assumpsit, 58. 

Conflict of Laws, 155. Corpor- 

Dudley v. Littlefield, 
Duncan v. Sylvester, 
Doncan v. Sylvester, 
Duncan v. Sylvester, 
Duncan v. Sylvester, 

xxi. 76, Dunn v. Hayes, 









Dunn y. Whitney, 
Dunning v. Sayward, 
Dunton v. Reed, 
Durham v. Alden, 
Durham v. Angier, 
Durham v. Lewtston, 
Dutton School A Min 
Fund v. Kendrick, 

Bills, &c. 107, 112. Partnership, 501. 

Amendment, 28. Joint Tenants, &«. 402. 

Costs, 194. 

Partition, 496. 

Action on Case, 12. Deed, 233. Flats, 353. 

Joint Tenants, Ac. 401, 403. 
Deed, 226. Evidence, 285. Plan, 521. Practice, 

Agency, 25. Evidence, 310, 311. 
Assignment, 52. Bills, Ac. 127. 
Impounding, 382. 
Estoppel, 277. 

Dower, 246, 247. Limitations, 431 . 
Constitutional Law, 163. 

Abatement, 5. Bills, Ac. 109. Corporatioii, 188. 

Digitized by 



iz. 21, 
XXV. 379, 

XXY. 9, 

xxiii. 464, 
XX vi. 546, 

J>winal V. Fitke, 
Dwinal r. Smith, 
Dyer y. Bumham, 
Dyer v. Greene, 
Dyer v. Woodbary, 


DW.— EM. 

Logs, 440. 
Equity, 356, 358. 

Agency, 21. Aenfmnent, 53. Bilk, 4^. 106. 
Exoepttons, 321. Practice, 558, 669. 
Damages, 205, 206. Officer, 487, 490. P*or 


▼iii. 81, 

XV. 368, 

xvii. 356, 

xxui. 248, 

xviii. 247, 

xiv. 419, 

XV. 155, 

viii. 22, 

X. 137, 
xiv. 335, 

ii. 46, 

xix. 461, 

xvii. 338, 

XV. 340, 

xxiv. 505, 


X. 80, 

xii. 371, 

ix. 125, 

XXV. 371, 

XV. 160, 

xviii. 337, 

XV. 191, 

xvii. 235, 

xiii. 31^ 

i. 339, 

xvi. 77, 

vL 200, 

xiv. 271, 

xxiii. 384, 

xii. 148, 

XV. 458, 

ix. 42, 

V. 197, 

ix. 88, 

ix. 98, 

xxiv. 445, 

V. 232, 

xvii. 252, 

xiii. 14« 

xvii. 76, 

iv. 33, 

iv. 407, 
ii. 93, 

Eames v. Patteraon, Fence, 348, 349. 

Earle v. Clarke, Evidence, 284. Witneaa, 672. 

Eastern Bank v. Brown, Bills, &c. 117. 

Eastman v. Avery, 

Eastman v. Hills, 
Eastman v. Rice, 
Eastport v. Hawkes, 
Eaton V. Brown, 

Eaton V. Cole, 
Eaton V. Emerson, 

Eaton V. Ogier, 
Eddy V. Bond, 
Eddy V. Herrin, 
Edmond v. Caldwell, 

Edmunds v. Wiggin, 
Elden v. Cole, 
Elder v. Elder, 
Eldridgov. Wadleigh, 
Ellingwood v. Dickey, 
Elliot V. Shepherd, 
Elliot V. Stuart, 
Ellis V. Beale, 
Ellis V. Grant, 
Ellis V. Jameson, 
Ellis V. Madison, 
Elwell V. Shaw, 
Emerson v. Coowell, 
Emenon v. Fiu, 

Emerson v. Harmon, 
Emerson v. Lakin, 
Emerson v. Littlefield, 
Emerson v. Lombard, 
Emerson v. Taylor, 
Emerson v. Towle, 
Emerson v. Washington 

County, Assumpsit, 62. 

Emerson v. Washington 

County. Agency, 21. 

Emerson v. Washington 

County Bank, Bank, 94 

Emery v. Chase. 
Emery v. Davis, 
Emery v. Goodwin, 
Emery v. Goodwin, 
Emery v. Go wen. 

Attachment, 83. Bailment, 91. Mortgage, 472. 
Pledge, 533. 

Impounding, 383. 

Fence, 348. Impounding, 382. 

Watch and Ward, 654. 

Executors, 4bc. 336, 337, 340, 342. Probate Ac- 
counts, 564. 

Arbitration, 38, 43, 44. 

Bond, 137. Condition, 154. Evidence, 293. 
Tender, 627. 

Amendment, 27. Damages, 204. Officer, 486. 

Bills, &€. 107, 110. 

BUls, dtc. 127. Duress, 250. 

Agency, 21, 25. Assumnit, 60^72. Bills, dke. 
109. Trustee Process, 640. 

Assumpsit, 73. Practice, 558. 

Error, ftn. Review, 584. 

Equity, 261 . Evidence, 292. 

Vender and Purchaser, 650. Witness, 671. 

Poor Debtors, 543. 

Deed, 233. Trespass, 636. 

Dower, 249. Pleading, 532. 

Assumpsit, 63. Gaming, 370. 

MiUtia, 450. 

Error, 272. Partnerahip, 502, 503. 

Evidence, 297. Practice, 549. Rules of Court, 586. 

Agency, 20. Tax, 623. 

Agency, 18. Contract, 174. New Trial, 476. 

Assignment, 51. Bailment, 90. License, 426. 
Lien, 427. Practice, 548. Rules of Court, 586. 

Evidence, 312. Partnership, 500. 

Amendment, 32. Militia, 454. Pleading, 532. 

Attachment, 76. Deed, 217. Execution, 325. 

Coeto, 192. 

Deed, 223. Flats, 352. 

Execution, 331. 

Const Law, 157. County, 195. 
County, 195. 

Deed, 237. Evidence, 296. 
Trustee Process, 639, 641, 644. 
E<)uity, 259. 

Emery v. Hersey, 
Emery v. Sherman, 

Militia, 453. 
Actions, Sui. 8. 

ChUd, 491. 
Shipping, 611. 
Executors, &c. 339. 

Action on Case, 12. Parent and 

Digitized by 



Emerj t. Twombly, 
Emery t. Vinal, 

EmiiioBt V. Littldfield, 
Emmons ▼. Lord, 

Enkine v. Plummer, 
Erring v. Pray, 
Ecmond t. TariM>x, 
Emm t. Troy, 
EmCu y. Hall, 
EiMlM T. Kidder, 
ETans V. Chism, 
Etsbi t. Owood, 
Ereleth y. Little, 
EYeleth y. Soribner, 
EYeleth y. Wileon, 
Ewell Y. GiUis, 

XY. 58, Exeter y. Brighton, 

































EM. — PB. 

EYidenee, 882. 

BiU8,Ao. 135. Dt»aiee,208. Debt, US. EyI- 

denoe,2dl. Exceptwaii, 323. FnMid, Ac. 962. 

Praotiee, 650. 
Estoppel, 276. EYideaee, 297. 
A{»peal, 34. Contract, 179. EYidenee, 287. Ex* 

ceptiona, 318. Parent and Child, 492. Plead 

tug, 532. 
Frauds, Statate oi, 367. Sale, 592. 
Costs, 192. 
Deed, 221, 222. 
Way, 666. 
Assumpsit, 72. 

Constable, 156. Pleading, 526 
Equity, 257, 261, 263. Witness, 674. 
Proprietors of Common Lands, 569. 
Amendment, 32. Eaoirr, 257. Execodoa, 330. 
Contract, 175. Frands, SlalBte oi, 967. 
Equity, 261. 
EYidence, 299. Pleading, 525, 527. TroYer, 

Pauper, 506. 


XYiii. 296, Fairbanks y. Stanley, 

Yii. 96, 

xiii. 90, 
xxiii. 498, 

xxiY. 211, 
xxY. 423, 
XIY. 89, 

xxiii. 553, 
xiY. 225, 
xyL 453, 
XYi. 456, 

XYiii. 376, 
XY. 79, 

xxiY. 250, 

Fairbanks f, William 

Fairfield y. Canaan, 
Fairfield y. Paine, 

Fales Y. Dow, 
Fales Y. Goodhue, 
Fales Y. Reynolds, 
Fales Y. Wadsworth, 
Farmer y. Rand, 
Farmer y. Rand, 
Farmer y. Sewall, 
Farmington y. Jay, 
Famham y. Cram, 
Famham y. Gilman, 

xxi. 508. Famham y. Moor, 

xxii. 475, 

Y. 345, 

X. 191, 

xix. 440, 

xxYi. 202, 

i. 17, 

YU. 404, 

Yi. 154, 

xiY. 423, 

xxi. 266, 

X. 409, 

XX. 159, 

xxYi. 499, 

xxYi. 470, 

Yi. 264, 

Famham y. O'Brien, 
Farrar y. Eastman, 
Farrar y. Eastman, 
Farrar y. Oilman, 
Farrar y. Loring, 

Farrar y. Merrill, 
Farrar y. Perley, 
Farrar y. Stackpole, 
Farrington y. Blish, 
Fayette y. Hebron, 
FaYette y. Leeds, 
Felcb Y. Hooner, 
Ferguson y. Thomas, 
Femald y. Dawley, 
Femald y. Lewis, 

Amendment, 33. Attachment, 76, 78. Attor- 
ney, 85. BUls,&c. 133. Officer, 490. Plead- 
ing, 525. 

CoYonant, 196. Deed, 220. Estoppel, 275. 

Pauper, 505. 

Amendment, 32, 33. Attachment, 79. Pmctiee, 

Poor Debtors, 543, 545, 546. 
Poor Debtors, 538, 539, 544. 
Payment, 517. 

BiUs, Ac, 121. EYidence, 309. 
Bills, Ac, 109, 131. 
Bills, Ac. 109, 117. 
Bills, Ac, U9. Usury, 648. 
Pauper, 505, 512. 
Pleading, 526. 
Attachment, 83. Attorney, 86. Bankraptcy, 95, 

Damages, 207. Officer, 488. ReleMe, Ac. 579, 

Contract, 169. 

Deed, 213, 214. Prop'rs of common lands, 568. 
Prop'rs of common lands, 568. Seisin, &c. 6(KI. 
Bank, 93. Bills, &c. 112. 
Certiorari, 146. C. C. Pleas, Ac 196. Public 

lots, 570, 571. 
Evidence, 298. Exceptions, 318. 
Prop'rs of common lands, 568. 
Deed, 228. Evidence, 292. Fixtures, 351. 
Mills, 457. 
Pauper, 508. 

Bastardy, 99. Pauper, 505,, 506. 
Equity, 257, 260, 261, 271. 
Mortgnge, 470, 473. 
Evidence, 295. 
Parish, 494. 

Digitized by 




Ti. S34, Fernald t. Lintcott, 

ii. 810, Feyler v. Feyl«r, 

zix. 6df Fkkett v. Dyer, 

XV. 966, Field y. Hanteomb, 

xxi. 69, Field t. Huston, 

xxi. 383, Fifield y. Smith, 

^iY. 441, Fillebrown v. Webber, 

xix. 467, Fiih v. Jackmaiit 

Yiii. 122, Fisher y. Bartlett, 

vii. 28, Fisher y. Bradford, 

Yi. 455, Fisher y. Ellis, 

xii. 373, Fisk v. Briggs, 

XX. 301, Fiske v. Carr, 

xzY. 453, Fiske y. Small, 

xxi. 457, Fiske y. SteYens, 

Y. 410, Fisk V. Weston, 

Yi. 386, Flagg y. Willington, 

XYiii. 357, Flanders y. fiarstow, 

XYii. 81, Fletcher Y.Backfield, 

XX. 439, Fletcher y. Lincoln- 


xiii. 295, Fling y. Trafton, 

XY. 67, 
xviii. 270, 
xix. 261, 
XYi. 282, 
xxi. 529, 
xix. 352, 
XIX. 252, 

Yiii. 400, 
X. 297, 

xxi. 166, 

Yiii. 334, 
i. 30, 

xiY. 312, 

Y. 390, 

i. 304, 

XX. 124, 

XYiii. 380, 

xiii. 307, 

Flint Y. Rogers, 
Flitner y. Hanly, 
Flitner y. Hanley, 
Fogg Y. Greene, 
Fogg Y. HiU, 
Fogg V. Virmn, 
Folsom Y. Moore, 

Foisom Y. Mussey, 
Folsom Y. Mussey, 
Folsom Y. Perkins, 
Ford Y. Clough, 
Fosdick Y. Gooding, 
Fobs y. Stewart, 

Fobs y. Stickney, 
Foster y. Beat^, 
Foster y. Bnmiin, 
Foster y. Dixfield, 
Foster y. Haines, 

xxiY. 448, Foster y. Libby, 
xxYi. 322, Foster y. Ord^way, 
iii. 458, Foster y. Tucker, 

' xix. 420, Fowles y. Pindar, 

xxiY. 377, Fowles y. Treadwell, 

Y. 245, Fox Y. Adams, 

Yi. 240, Fox Y. Cutts, 

xxi. 104, Fox Y. Harding, 

lY. 214, Fox Y. Widgery, 

iv. 72, Foxcroil v. Nevens, 

iY. 382, Foxcroft Academy y. 


xxiu. 322, Frankfort Bank y. John 

xxiv. 490, Frankfort Bank v. 
4 Johnson, 

FE. — FR. 

Mortgage, 460. 

AppMd, 34. Exceptions, 318. Practice, 556. 

Devise, dbc. 237. Dower, 245. Estoppel, 277. 

Seizin, 4cc. 602. 
PartitioB, ^6. 
Deed, 232. 
Practice, 554. 

New Trial, 476. Pleading, 532. 
BilU, Ac, 115, 117. 
Attachment, 82. 
Bills, 4cc. 111. 
Poof Debtors, 543. 

Betterments, 100. Constitntional Law, 157. 
Amendment, 32. Assignment, 54. Corporation, 

185. Mortgage, 471. 
Sale, 589. Trespass, 635, 636. Witness; 680. 
Assignment, 57. Bills, &c. 134. Evidence, 308. 
Trustee Process, 639. 
Evidence, 287, 304. 
Mortgage, 470, 471. 
Surplus Revenue, 690. 

Attorney, 85. Practice, 557. 

Schools, &c. 598. 

Amendment, 33. 
Review, 584. 

Bills, &c, 116, 125. Exceptions, 320. 

Executors, Ac, 338. Insolvent EsUte, 394. 

Insolvent Estate, 394. 

Amendment, 28. Partnership, 503. 

Evidence, 288. Practice, 560. 

Abatement, 5. Agency, 23. Bills, du;. 104. 

Fixtures, 352. Landlord and Tenant, 417. Li- 
cense, 427. 

Bills, ^bc. 105, 106. Contract, 170. 

Agency, 22. 

Militia, 446, 452. 

Bond, 142. Collector, 149. 

Abatement, 3. Dower, 246, 248. Pleading, 524. 

Attachment, 74, 81,84. Estoppel, 279. Officer, 
487. Trespass, 635. 

Execution, 334. Practice, 549. 

Bastardy, 96. 

Costs, 190. 

Nonsuit, 478. Praetice, 557. Wav, 663, 664. 

Amendment, 26. Exceptions, 319. Innholders, 

Trustee Process, 643. 

Assumpsit, 60. Larceny, 420. 

Assignment, 55. 
Costs, 194. 
Actions, dec. 7. 

Trover, 637. 
Attachment, 78, 83. 
Bankruptcy, 96. 

Assignment, 55. Attachment, 78. 
SetK)ff, 607, 608. 
Mortgage, 462. 

Estopper, 274. Seizin, &c. 605. 
Assessors, 49. Collector, 149. Surety, 618. Tax, 


Assumpsit, 60. Contract, 170. 

Bond, 141. 

Agency, 21. Bank, 94. Corporation, 187. 
ceotions, 321 . Witness, 674. 


Digitized by 




zxiii. 60, 

xxiU. 546, 

zzrr. 52, 

xxTi. 136, 

ziii. 255, 

ui. 260, 

zxi. 446, 

xi. 79, 

vi. 68, 

XTiii. 292, 


xxiu. 96, 

in. 340, 

xziiL 472, 

zxi. 305, 

xxi. 29, 

ZTiii. 433, 

▼i. 166, 

zxiii. 276, 

XV. J63, 

XX. 466, 

FE. — FU. 

Franklin Bank ▼. Bach- 

elder, Bankruptcy, 95. Scire Facias, 601. 

Franklin Bank t. Bloa- 

som, Exaootion, 333. Officer, 484. 

Franklin Bank t. Small, Attachment, 82. Damages, 205. Officer, 486. 
Franklin Bank t. Small, Attachment, 85. 
Freeman t. Cram, Actions, Ac. 8. Costs, 191. 

Freeman v. Paul, Amendment, 31. Mortgage, 463, 466. 

Freeman v. Rankins, New Trial, 476. Trespass, 635. 
Freeman v. Swett, Agency, 18. 

Freeman v. Walker, ^hipping, 610. 
Freeman's Bank t. Ft^ 

Freeman's Bank t. ( 

Bollins, < 

Freeman's Bank t. 

Freeport v. Bartol, 
Freeport v. Pownal, 
Freeport v. Sidney, 
French v. Brunswick, 
French v. Camp, 
French t. Chase, 
French t. Crosby, 
French t. Grindle, 
French t. McAllister, 

Bills, Ac. 103, 114, 115, 120. 
Bills, 4bo. 122, 130, 131. Payment, 518. Surety, 
618. Witness, 670. 

Frauds, Statute of, 367. 

Way, 663, 664. 
Way, 656. 

xzL 372, French v. Rollins, 

zxi. 512, French t. Stanley, 
Tiii. 246, French t. Stnrdivant, 

Frontier Bank ▼. Morse, Assumpsit, 66. 

Frost V. Butler, Condition, 154 

Frost T. Deering, 

Frost Y. Frost, 

Frost T. Goddard, 

TiL 225, 

xxi. 156, 

xi. 235, 

xxT. 414, 

xriii. 180, 

xH. Ill, 

xi 271, 

ii. 130, 

U. 255, 
-zxiv. 403, 

XTiii. 320, 

Frost T. Hill, 
Frost T. Paine, 
Frost T. Portland, 
Frost T. Rowse, 
Frost T. Shapleiffh, 
Frothingham t. Dutton, 

Frothii^ham t. 

Frye ▼. Uinkley, 


Equity, 264. 

Evidence, 291. 

Pauper, 509. 

Pauper, 510. 

Evidence, 302. 

Actions, Ac. 9. 

Partnership, 502. 

Dower, 248. Probate Court, 566. 

Bills, Ac. 136. Usury, 648. 

Arrest, 47. Damages, 2J1. Poor Debtors, 536, 

Entry, 252. Forfeitme, 355. Limitations, 431 . 

Seizin, Ac. 602. 
Attachment, 77, 80. Exceptions, 318, 321. 
Equity, 253. Mortgage, 459. 

Notice and Demand, 479. 
Forfeiture, 356. 
Deed, 216. Dower, 247. Evidesee, 282. 
Assumpsit, 61. Condition, 154. 
Exceptions, 323. Fraud, Ac. 364. Practiee, 565. 

Sale, 594. 
Militia, 452. 

Champerty, 147. Contract, 178. Officer, 483. 
Way, 662, 663. 

Debt, 212. Pleading, 5M, 525. 
Evidence, 281. Ofl£^r, 489. 
Appeal, 34. Practice, 656. 

Mortgage, 469. 
Abatement, 3, 6. 

Fryeborg Canal v. Frye, Arbitrstion, 38, 40. 

utes, 616. 

Exceptions, 320. Practiee, 659, 
Fryeburg Canal, 370. Stat- 

zzi. 176, Fryeburg Parsonage 
Funds V. Osgood, 
vi. 442, Fryeburg Parsonage 
Funds V. Ripley, 
zxiii. 255, FuMer v. Benjamin, 
XXV. 243, Fuller v. Uodgdon, 

viiL 213, 
X. 197, 

xiv. 417, 
XV. 53, 

xvii. 222, 
X. 365, 

viii. 393, 

viii. 315, 
XXV. 219, 

Fuller V. McDonald, 
Fuller V. Pratt, 
Fuller V. Spear, 
Fuller V. Whipple, 
Fuller V. Wing, 
Fuller V. Young, 
FuUerton v. Harris, 

Furbish v. Hall, 
Furbish v. White, 

Limitations, 435, 439. 

Bills, Ac. 105. 

Bankruptcy, 95. Equity, 260. Partnership, 502. 

Deposition, 235. Fraud, Ac. 358. Mortgage, 462. 

Practice, 561 . Witness, 675. 
BUls, Ac. 119, 122, 129. Evidence, 292. 
Mortgage, 459. 
Fisheries, 360. 
Costs, 190. 

Amendment, 29. Guardian, 376. Writ, 680. 
Executors, Ac. 337. Heirs, 378. 
Damages, 212. Debt, 212. Escape, 273. Poor 

Debtors, 542. 
Arbitration, 38. Overseers, 491. 

Digitized by 




▼ii. 394, Gage ▼. Coombf, 

zx. 437, Gage t. Johnaon, 

xiT. 466, Gage t. Smith, 

ZXT. 101, Gage t. Ward, 

zyii. 378, Gage ▼. WUaon, 

xi. 489, Gallagher ▼. Roberta, 

xi. 28, Galvin t. Bafion, 

xii. 454, Galvin t. Shaw, 

xiii. 367, Galvin t. Thompson, 

xxiii. 565, Gamage t. Hutchins, 

XTi. 426, Crammon ▼. Dow, 

xxY. 66, Gammon ▼. Eyerett, 

xiv. 250, Gammon t. Howe, 

xxiii. 46, Gardiner v. Gerrish, 

XXV. 140, Gardiner v. Morse, 

xvi. 279, Gardner v. Niles, 

V. 140, Gardiner v. Nuttinjf, 

xiv. 453, Gardiner Bank t. Hodg- 


Till. 373, Gardiner Bank v. Whea- 

T. 133, Gardiner C. & W. Fac- 

tory V. Gardiner, 

T. 381, Gardiner Man. Co. v. ) 
Heald, 5 

iii. 197, Garland v. Brewer, 

xiz. 441, Garland v. Dover, 

xxiii. 442, Garland v. Uilbom, 



Trustee Process, 641. 

Actions, &C. 9. Bills, Ac. 134. Executors, Ac. 

844, 345. Plaadinff, 523. 
Assumpsit, 70. Landlord and Tenant, 419, 420. 
Dower, 245. 
Evidence, 284. New Trial, 477. Sale, 596. 

Witness, 672. 
Bills, Ac. 114. 
Notice and Demand, 478. 
Eqmtj, 253, 256. 

Arbitration, 44. Evidence, 297. Practice, 555. 
Bills, Ac. 124. Guaranty, 375. 
Bond, 139. 
BiUs, Ac. IfS-. 
Penalty, 519. 
Equity, 254, 270. 

gage, 469. 
Auction, 89. Contract, 167. 
Damages, 209, 210. 
Limitations, 437. PftMStice, 548. 

Estoppel, 274, 276, 277. Mort- 

XX. 45, Garland v. Reynolds, 

xxvi. 561, 
xxvi. 243, 

xxii. 438, 
xxvi. 384, 

vu. 26, 
vi. 350, 
iv. 226, 
V. 19, 
iv. 345, 

viii. 295, 

xii. 74, 
iv. 483, 

XX. 367, 
xxii. 246, 

XV. 452, 
xvi. 124, 

Gault V. Hall, 
George v. Stnbbs, 

Gerrish v. Nason, 
Gerrish v. Union Wharf, 

Gibson v. 
Gibson v, 
Gilbert v, 
Gilbert v, 
Gilbert v 
Gilbert v 
Gilbert v 
Gilbert v. 

V. Heald, 
V. Jewett, 
. Waterhouse, 



. Merrill, 

. Whidden, 


Giiman v. Lewis, 
Gilman v. Stetson, 

xviii. 4528, Gilman v. Stetson, 

xxiv. 202, 
vii. 25, 
xi. 485, 
xii. 412, 

Gilman v. Veazie, 
Gilman v. Wells, 
Gilmore v. Black, 
Gihnore v. Bowden, 

Equity, 265. 

Equity, 264. 

Tax, 621, 622. 

Assumpsit, 59. Evidence, 292. Execution, 394. 

Joint Tenants, Ac. 402. Sale, 593. 
Pauper, 514. 

Parent and Child, 492. Pauper, 512. 
Attachment, 74. ImndHori and Tenant, 416. 

Property, 567. 
Actions, Ao. 9. Agency, 25. Corporation, 188. 

Pleading, 522. Surplus Revenue, 620. 
Deed, 220. Ezecution, 328, 381. Practice, 549. 
Practice, 559. Sale, 589, 590, 698. Witness, 675, 

Will, 668.' 
Actions, Ac. 10. Aquatie Rights, 37. Estoppel, 

278. Flats, 368. "* "^""^ "^ ' 

Limitations, 437. 
Equity, 266. 

Malicious Prosecution, 442. 
Costs, 194. Practice, 561. 
Fraud, Ac. 856, 357. Sale, 593. 
Attachment, 84. Execution, 332. 
Equity, 269. Execution, 334. ^ 

Justices of the Peace, Q[norum Unus, 413. 
Evidence, 285, 313. Partnership, 503. 
Evidence, 289. Exceptions, 321. New Trial, 474, 

475. Practice, 559. 
Bills, Ac. 120, 123,132. 
Amendment, 32. Betterments, 101, 102. Entry, 

252. Evidence, 301. Real Actions, 576. Seis- 

in, Ac. 602. 
Betterments, 101. Limitations, 431. Real Ac- 
tions, 576. 
Evidence, 294, 300. 
Limitations, 435. 
Contract, 177. Partnership, 498. 
Witness, 670. 

Digitized by 




xii. 418, 

xxiv. 18, 

T. 465, 

T. 303, 

ix. 79, 

XXV. 366, 

▼i. 427, 

xi. 440, 

XTu. 366, 

xxii. 363, 

xiii. 386, 

Gilmore t. Boatftft 
Gilpatrick t. Hunter, 
GUpatriok t. fiftjward. 
Given v. SimiMon, 
Gleason v. Drew, . 
Globe Bank v. Small, 
Goddard v. Bolster, 
Goddard t. Catta, 
Goddard v. Mitchell, 
Goddard v. Potaain« 
Gooch V. Bryant, 

zm. 371, Goook t. StaphsnaoB* 

XV. 139, Goocfa T. Stenhai 

XX. 322, Goodall v. Wentworth, 

xxi. 86, 
xxiv. 425, 

viii. 116, 

xvii. 381, 

XX. 164, 

xxiL 453, 

xH. 971, 
xviL 74, 
iv. 88, 
iv. 16, 
xxi. 251, 
xi. 213, 
vL 247, 

Goodenow v. Donn, 
Goodenow v. Kilbj, 
Goodhne v. Butman, 
Goodman v. Norton, 
Goodnow V. Howe, 
Goodwin v. Appletoo, 

Billa, Ae. 106. Ualtatioiia, 433. 

Release, &c. 579. 

Aatumpeit, 61. Franda, Statote of, 367. 

Eqnitr, 258. 

FraiMU, Statnte oC; 368. Mortgasei 469. . 

BUla, Ac 118. Gnaran^, 375. 

Fixturea, 352. Jadcment, 403. Pmctica, 560. 

BiUe, 4bo. 104,105. hpw Trial, 475. 

AMtnnptit, 63. 

AasomiMit; 64. Evidenee, 288. 

Amendment, 28. Bilk, ^kc UO, 131. Evidaace, 

315, 317. 
Fence, 348, 349. Impoondinf, 382. 0tat«tea, 

Poor Debton, 535, 541. Statutea, 615. 
AsaumMit, 66. Billa, d^. i». Smrety, 619. 
-- Mortaas6,472. 

LaadloN and TeaiBt, 415. 

Contract, 166. 
Ealoppal, 277. 
CkMitraot, 168. 
BUla, dlMs. 117. 
Bailment, 90. 
Evidence, 310. 
Verdict, 650. 
Certiorari, 146. 

Goodwin t. Hallowell, 

Goodwin v. Huntington, 0ama|;ee, 210. 

Goodwin v. liuney, Depoaition, 235. 

New Trial, 476. 
Billa, Ac. 123, 136. Estoppel, 279. 
Practice, 555, 558. Usor7,650. 

Waj, 658, 660, 661. 












































Gookin v. Wkittier, 
Gordon v. Lowell, 
Gordon v. Pierce, 
Gordon v. Tucker, 

Gordon v. Wilklns, 
Gore V. Elwell, 
Gore V. Jenne^ 
Gore V. Mason, 
Gorham v. Blazo, 
Gorham v. Calais, 
Gorham v. Canton, 
Gorham v. Herrick, 
Crorham v. Springfield, 
Gould V. Fuller, 
Gould V. Hutchina, 

Record, 578. 

Seisin, Ac 603, 605. 


Abatement, 3. Pleading, 530, 531. 

Arbitration, 41, 43, 45. Coala, 192. Pleading, 

Attachment, 81. Practice, 558. 
Evidence, 281 . Practice, 560. 
Mortgage, 461, 466. 
Contract, 170. 
Execution, 325, 329, 331. 
Pauper, 514. 

Evidence, 312. Pauper, 510. 
Deed, 219. Fraud, Ac. 362. Sale, 592. 
Pauper, 508. Statutes, 615, 616. Town, 629. 
Surety, 619. 
Militia, 447, 453. 

Gould V. New Portland, Collector, 149. Contract, 166. 

Gould V. Parlin, 
Gould V. Williamson, 
Gove V. Richardson, 
Gowell V. True, 
Gowen, ex parte, 
Gowen v. Gerrish, 
Gowen v. Nowell, 
Gowen v. Nowell, 
Gowen v. Wentworth, 
Gower v. Emery, 

XXV. 16, Ciower v. Moore, 

xix. 92, Grower v. Stevens, 

xxii. 128, Grander v. Clark, 

xviii. 340, Granite Bank v. Treat, 

V. 69, Graves v. Fisher, 

i. 257, Gray v. Wass, 

i. 172, Greely v. Bartlett, 

xxi. 465, Greely v. Hunt, 

iv. 479, Greely v. Thurston, 

Set-off, 608. 

Equity, 262, 270. 

Evidence, ^8. 

Militia, 449. 

Bastardy, 99. Mandamua, 442. 

Penalty, 519. 

Champerty, 147. 

Bond, 136. 

Bills, Ac. 126, 136. 

Agency, 24. Aasumpsit, 60. Attorney, 86. Evi- 
dence, 318. OflM^r, 485. 

Bills, &c. 114, 116. 

Attechment, 75, 77. 

Judgment, 405, 406. 

Evidence, 306, 307. JurisdictioA, 400. Poor 
Debtors, 540, 544. 

Arbitration, 41. Deed, 221. 

Attorney, 85. 

Agency, 24, 26. 

Bills, &c. 114. 

Amendment, 27. Bills, 4bc. 121. 

Digitized by 




GR. — HA. 



































































Greelj v. Waterhoiue, Bottomry Bond, 144. Mortgage, 471 
Greene School Diitrict 

V. Bailev, 
Green v. Blake, 
Greene v. Bockfieid, 
Green v. Darling, 
Green v. Darling, 
Greene v. Dingley, 

Green v. Haakell, 
Green v. Hardy, 
Greene v. Harriman, 
Greene v. Jackson, 
Green v. Lowell, 
Green v. Morae, 
Greene v. Taunton, 
Green v. Thomas, 
Greene t. Thompson, 
Greene v. Windnam, 
Greene v. Young, 
Greenlaw v. Greenlaw, 
Greenleaf ▼. Qnincy, 
Greenough v. Balch, 
Greenw(K>d v. Fales, 
Greer v. Greer, 
Grecory v. Tozier, 
Griffin V. Derby, 
Griffin V. Fairbrother, 
Grimes v. Turner, 
Grosvenor v. Little, 
Groton v. Dallheim, 
Groton v. Buggies, 
Groton v. Wudobo- 

Grover v. Drummond, 
Guilford v. Abbott, 

A ss essors, 49. Schools, ^. 597. 
Devise, Ac. 238. Evidence, 309. 
Pauper, 505, 511. 
Bills, Ac. 125. 
Bills, Ac. 115, 117. 

Law and Fact, 421, 423. Mortgage, 472. Re- 
plevin, 583. 
Jurisdiction, 409. Recognisanee, 577. 
Descent, Ac. 236. 
Evidence, 312. 

Amendment, 26. BiUs, ^^. 103, 120, 122, 131. 
Amendment, 29. Officer, 482, 484, 485. 
Arrest, 47. Officer, 481. Trespass, 636. 
Pauper, 514. 

Condition, 151, 152. Deed, 219. 
Estoppel, 278. Real Actions, 573. 
Evidence, 299. Pauper, 505, 510, 511. 
Bond, 136. Surety, 618. 
Mortga^, 468. Real Actions, 572, 574. 
Limitations, 437. 
Bills, &c. 105. 

Abatement, 2. Costs, 191. Trustee Proce«, 639. 
Assumpsit, 65. Frauds, Statute of, 368. 
Execution, 327. Real Actions, 572. 
Frauds, Statute of; 365. 
Covenant, 199. 

Attorney, 88. Bond, 137. Damages, 210. 
Execution, 332. 
Bills, Ac. 113. 
Executors, ^^. 340. Probate Bonds, 565. 

Assumpsit, 62. ^^ * 
Costs, 194. Deed,l96. 
Pauper, 516. 


viii. 228, 
viii. 77, 

X. 383, 
ii. 216, 

vii. 435, 

iv. 77, 

i. 334, 

vi. 416, 

xvi. 305, 
V. 409, 

xii. 134, 
xxiv. 311, 
xxiii. 461, 

viii. 434, 
X. 278, 

xxi. 461, 
i. 129, 

i. 93, 

V. 143, 

XXV. 225, 

Hacker v. Storer, 
Hackett v. Martin, 

Hains v. Gardner, 
Hale V. Gushing, 
Hale V. Jewell, 
Hale V. Portland, 
Hale V. Rubs, 
Hale V. Smith, 
Haley v. Godfrey, 
Hall's case, 
Hall V. Bean, 
Hall V. McDuff, 
Hall V. Thing, 
Hall V. Williams, 
Hall V. WilUams, 
Halley v. Webster, 
Hallowell v. Bowdoin- 

Hallowell v. Gardiner, 
Hallowell v. Saco, 
Halsted v. Little, 

Covenant, 199. 

Assignment, 50, 53. Evidence, 313, 316. Wit- 
ness, 670. 
Dower, 248. Estoppel, 275. 
Evidence, 283. 
Usury, 648. 
Presumption, 562. 

Bail, 89. Contract, 171. Evidence, 282. 
Evidence, 290, 315. Witness, 672. 
Practice, 551. Witness, 676. 
Complaint, 151. Indictment, 384. 
Real Actions, 574. 
Deed, 219. 
Shipping, 613. 

Abatement, 2. Pleading, 530. 
Amendment, 26, 30. Judgment, 406. 
Will, 668. Witness, 679. 

Pauper, 507. 

Pauper, 507, 512. 

Pauper, blO, 511. 

Contract, 173. Equity, 268. • 

Digitized by 



xi. 391, 
xiT. 351, 
zrii. 819, 
»x. 66, 

zsir. 145, 
xix. 141, 
XTi. 171, 

xii. 4M, 

ii. 33, 

ndr. 981, 

iii. 436, 

ztL 303, 

XX. 75, 

xxii. 560, 
XX. 431, 

xvii. 96, 
xu. 142, 
XX. 373, 

Ham*s ciM, 
Ham T. Hun, 
Hamihon v. Funa, 
HamUin t. Bank of 

HamKa t. Bridca, 
Hamlin ▼. Hanuin, 
Haaunatt T. Riuii, 

Hammatt ▼. Sawytr, 
Hammon4*t case, 
Hampden t. Brewar, 
Hampden v. Fairfield, 
Hanoook ▼. Lock and 

Sloice Co. 
Hancock t. Look and 

Sluice Co. 
Handley t. Howe, 
Hanley t. Spragne, 
Hanson ▼. Iljrer, 
Hanson t. Willard, 
Hapgood Y. HUl, 

L 28, Harding's caae, 
ix. 140, Harding v. Alden. 

Harding t. Batkr, 
Harding ▼. Fozcroft, 
Harding y. Harris, 
Harding y. Randall, 
Harding y. Springer, 
Harkness y. Farlej, 
Harknese Y. Waldo Co. 

Harlow y. Drew, 
Harlow y. Pike, 
Harlow y. Wi^n, 
Harmon y. Jennings, 
Harmon y* Merrill, 
Harmon y. Watsoti, 
Harper y. Little, 
Harriman y. Hill, 

XX. 93, Harriman y. Wilkina, 
XYiiL 277, Harrington y. Fuller, 

































Harris y. Blen, 



Harria y. l>insmore. 



Harris y. Hanson, 



Harris y. Seal, 



Harwood y. Roberts, 



Haskell Y. Allen, 



Haskell y. Becket, 



Haskell y. Brewer, 



Haskell Y. Greeljr, 



Haskell y. Green, 


Haskell y. HaakeU, 



Haskell Y. Jones, 



Haskell Y. Knox, 



Haskell y. Whitmore, 



Haakins y. Lombard, 


Adultery, 13. ETidMMe, 813^ 
Dower, 249. Estoppel, 276. 
Real Actions, 574. 

Dower, 245, 946. Estoppel, 277. 
Bankruptcy, 95. Eqoity, 260. Frand, Ac» 361. 
Dower, 244, 245. Estoppel, 279. 
Amendment, 28, Damages, 207. fiYidenoai 98i. 

Practice, 559. 
Joint Tenants, Ac. 400. Moitgafs^ 461% 
EYidence, 305. 
Panper, 505. 
Pauper, 506. 

Fisheries, 351. 

Fisheries, 351. Presumption, 563. 

Mortgage, 472. 

Equity, 261, 263. 

Poor Debtors, 536, 587. 

Partition, 495, 496. 

Attachment 80. EYidence, 299. Notice and D^ 

Common Law, 150. Forcibla Entry, 854. In- 
dictment, 385. 

DiYorce, 242. Dower, 244. Hoabaad and WUe« 
379. Judgment, 407. 

Poor Debtors, 539, 544. 

Partnership, 498. 

Costs, 193. 

Equity, 257. * 

Estoppel, 276. Husband and Wife, 380. 

EYidence, 307. Officer, 483. Scire Facias, 600* 

Certiorari, 145, 146. Way, 656, 657. 

See Crosby Y. Harlow. 

Way, 658, 66L 

See Crosby y. Harlow. 

Arbitration, 39. 

Bastardy^ 96. Bills, Ac. 106u 

Attorney, 85. Writ, 681 . 

Agency, 20, 22. Estoppel, 274. 

Actions, Ac. 8. Assi|punent« 53. Billi, 4bc. l31 

EYidence, 312. 
Limitations, 434. Officer, 486, 490. RaplcTiB, 

581, 562. Verdict, 662. 
Limitations, 433* Officer, 466, 4d6. Fropertyi 

567. Sale, 595. 
Contract, 182. 

Bond, 138. Clerk of tiM Coorti, 147. 
Bond, 138. Officer, 488. 
Arbitration, 44. Exoeptions, 822. 
Error, 272. Pleading, 524. 
Equi^, 254. 
RcYiew, 585. 

Assumpsit, 70. Tender, 626. Writ, 661. 
Sale, 588, 593. 

Bond, 142. Poor Debton, 544, 545. 
DcYiae, dbc. 241. 
Agency, 24. TroYcr, 686. 
Sunreyor, Ac. 620. 
Bills, ditc. 107,128. 
Abatament, 3. Bond, 137, 189. CoYCnaiit, 201. 

Digitized by 




ZTiii. 4d6» 

XT. 134, 

Ui. 283, 

jui 434, 

z. 244, 


UMtingi T 

Hastingi t. Lane, 
Hasty ▼. Johnaon, 
Haa^fr T. Wheeler, 
Hatch T. Dennia, 

T. 74, 

Tiu. 366, 

i. S38, 

X. 224, 

xii. 183, 

jnrii. 391, Hatch t. Haakina, 

xiT. 9, Hatch T. Kimball, 

XYi. 146^ Hatoh t. Kimhall, 

xi 354, Hatch t. Spearin, 

xxi. 6G7, Hathawaj t. Burr, 

XTii. 448, Hathaway ▼. Crosby, 

Hathoma t. Gate, 
Hathome t. Curtia, 
Hathome t. Hainea, 
Hathome w. StilisoD, 
Hathome t. Stinsoii, 
Haughtoo ▼. Davis* 
Haren t. Brown, 
Haven v. Hathaway, 
Hawea v. Din^ley, 
Hawea v. Smith, 
Hawks V. Baker, 
Hayden v. Madiaon, 
Hayea v. Kingsbury, 
Hayea v. Porter, 
Hayea v. Beaver, 
Haynes v. Small, 
Haynea t. Wellington, 
HajTward v. Sedgley, 
Head v. Sleeper, 
Heald v. Cooper, 
Heald V. Heald, 
Heald v. Hodgdon, 

Heald v. Weston, 
Heard v. Header, 
Heath t. Bicker, 
Heath v. Bicker, 
Heath v. Whidden, 
Heath v. WiUiaaa, 

Tii. 421, 

XX. 345, 

XTU. 341, 

xii. 429, 

vi. 72, 

vii. 76, 

xxii. 400, 

xxii. 371, 

▼ii. 237, 

xxii. 14, 

XXV. 458, 

xiv. 439, 

XX. 314, 

viii. 32, 

V. 387, 

xvi. 219, 

ii. 348, 
i. 166, 
ii. 72, 
ii. 408, 
xxiv. 383, 
XXV. 209, 

HA. -.HI. 

Agency, 19. New Trial, 476. 

Constitutional Law, 163. Statotoa, 615. 

Deed, 227. Eaaement, 251. Executors, 4kc. S36. 

Contract, 178. Lease, 423. 

Bills, Slc. 126, 130. Evidence, 315. PhMStia* 

Deed, 216, 217. Evidence, 296, 299. 
Covenant, 201. Estoppel, 276. Mortgage, 463. 
Eatoppel, 279. Evidence, 296. Law and Faet, 

421. Mortgage, 463, 464. 
Aasignment, SS, Assnmpait, 59. Bills, 4ke. IM. 

Practice, 559. 
Assumpsit, 66. Law and Fact, 423. 
Bond, 137. Damages, 210. Exceptions, 319. 

Judgment, 406. New Trial, 476. 
Costs, 193. 
Shipping, ^3. 

Abatement, 3. Actiona, Ac. 11. Seisin, Le. 605. 
Mills, 455. Practice, 559. 
Deed, 223. 

Assignment, 57. Eaaity, 257, 258, 260. 
Abatement, 2. Evidence, 295, 312, 315. 
Limitations, 439. 

Attachment, 79. Evidence, 304. Sale, 594. 
Contract, 178. 
Practice, 552. 

Aasumpsit, 69. Contract, 172. 
Poor Debtors, 537. 
Insurance, 3Sh5. 

Executors, dbc. 343. 
Officer, 41^ 484. 

Devise, &Ai. 241 
Attachment, 82. 
Mortgage, 465. 
Trespass, 634. 
Bills, &c. 134. 
Contract, 177. 
Executors, dkc. 331 
~ Agent, 414. 



















Heaton v Hodjns, 

Henderson v. Seavay. 

Herman v. Drink water, Evidence, 283. 

Herriek v. Bean, 


Herriek v. Hopkina, 
Herriek v. Johnson, 
Herriek v. Kingsley, 
Herriek v. Moore, 
Herrin v. Butters, 
Herrin v. Eaton, 
Hersey v. Veazie, 
Hervey v. Harvey, 
Hesseitine v. Seavey, 
Hewea v. Wiswell, 
Hewett V. Buck, 
Hewett V. Levering, 
Higgins V. Brown, 
Higgina v. Kendrick, 

Nons^t, 478. Practice, 557. 

99. Limitationa, 432. 

Revolutionary Offieera, dke. 

Militia, 452. 

Executors, Ac. 342. Limitationa, 432. 
Evidence, 286, 303. Fence, 348. 
Fence, 348. Impounding, 381. 
Covenant, 200. Heira, ^8. 
Aquatic Rights, 36. Evidence, 302. Landlord 
and Tenant, 418. Mills, 456. Mortgage, 462. 
Deed, 224. Plan, 521. 
Agency, 24. Evidence, 306. 

Witness, 670. 

Judgment, 406. Set-off, 608. 

Evidence, 294 

Deed, 224, 226. 

Bills, Ac. 126. 

Contract, 171. 

Covenant, 199. Way, 661 « 

Frauda, Statute of, 369. 

Actions, &c. 8. Bailment, 91. Pleading, 532. 

Corporation, 187. Equity, 260, 261. 

Billa, Ac. 109. Evidence, 311. 

Frauds, Statute of, 368. Lease, 423, 424. 

Deed, 217. Evidence, 283. 

Exceptions, 323. Shipping, 612, 61 3. 

Agency, 25. BiUs, ^tc. 130. 

Assumpsit, 66. 

Consteble, 156. Officer, 486, 487. . 

Digitized by 


TABLC or CAtSt. 

xiz. 137, 
xu. 162, 

uu 441, 
xiv. 121, 

xi. 460, 
xix. 423, 
xW. 164, 

iv. 10, 

tH. 232, 

xix. 107, 

xxTi. 107, 

xxiiL 264, 

xxL 306, 

XT. 64, 

XTi. 181, 

XX. 264, 

XTi. 177, 

xxiL 460, 

Hi|[ht T. Eipley, 
HilDonie t. Brown, 
Hill T. Dyer, 
HUl T. Fuller, 
HUl T. H•toJ^ 
Hill T. HilU, 
Hill T. Hotert, 

xix. 449, 
XTit. 316, 

XTu. 409, 

XTiii. 413, 

iii. 233, 

xiT. 38, 

XTii. 187, 

Ti. 109, 

xxi. 410, 

XTii. 263, 

XTiii. 397, 

xxiii. 136, 

XTii. 303, 

Tiii. 146, 
xtL 370, 

XT. 285, 
XTU. 429, 

X. 166, 
xii. 67, 

i. 309, 
Tiii. 187, 
XTi. 80, 
xix. 219, 
« U. 113, 
XTi. 314, 
TiL 113, 

X. 31, 

T. 309, 
xi. 361, 
XT. 9, 

xu. 602, 

it 394, 

xxiT. 427, 
iT. 255, 

Hill T. KnowltoB, 
Hill T. Millbam 

School District, 
Hill T. Peimj, 
Hill T. Tomer, 
HiU T. Vanell, 
Hill T. Woodmaa, 
HUb T. Rice, 
Hilt T. Cempbell, 
Hilton T. Dmemore, 
Hilton T. Gilman, 
Hilton T. Hanaon, 
Hilton T. Homane, 
Hilton T. Soothwiok, 

Hincklej, petitioner, 
Hincklej t. Blnehill 

Granite Co., 
Hinkley t. Fowler, 
Hobut T. Bartlett, 
Hobnrt T. Dodge, 
Hobart t. Hagget, 
Hobart t. Tilton, 
Hobbe T. Getobell, 
Hobbe T. Hanrej, 
Hobba T. Staples, 
Hodgdon t. Foster, 
Hodsdon t. Copeland, 
Hodsdon t. Wukina, 

m.— HO. 

Contract, 181. Frauds, Statole oi; 370. 

Piroperty, 667. TroTer, 637. 

Grants, Ac 371. Seisin, &e. 601. 

Militia, 446, 448, 449, 460, 453. 

ETidence, 313. 

Appeal, 34. Exceptions, 321. 

Bond, 139. Contraet, 174. Efoitr, 268. Law 
and Fact, 421, 423. Notiee and Desaod, 4y», 

Damages, 210. Poor Debton, 640, 646. 
[ Contract, 172, 174. Schools, Ac. 697. Use, 
[ 627. Witness, 674. 

Amendment, 29. Exeoolors, Ac. 341, 344. 

Amendment, 29. Error, 271. Militia, 448, 46t. 

BUls, Ac. 116, 129. 

Contract, 170. Landlord and Tenant, 417. 

Impounding, 382. 

BUls, Ac. 129. 

Frauds, Statute oi^ 366, 366. 

Deed, 231. 

Execution, 326. Law and Fad, 422. 

Assumpsit, 66. BTidenoe, 294. 

Assignment, 67. Bilb, Ac. 112. Conlrnet, 176. 
Jury, 410. Yeidict, 662. 

Way, 666. 

Writ, 682. 

Assumpsit, 69, 60, 61, 66. 

Witness, 676. 

Bills, Ac. 124. 

Trespass, 636, 636. Verdict, 661. 

ReTiew, 584. 

Arrest, 47. Const. Law, 169. 

Dower, 245, 246. 

Amendment, 26, 31. Error, 272. Jodgmeaft, 416. 

Justice of the Peace, 412. 

Assumpsit, 64. Corporation, 184, 186. 

Contract, 168. Damages, 206. Witness, 673. 

Hoibrook t. Armstrong, Assumpsit, 69. Bailment, 91. Frauds, Stat, of; 369. 

Holbrook t. Baker, 
Hoibrook t. Holbrook, 
Holbrook T. Holbrook, 

Holbrook t. Wethar- 

Attacbment, 73. Moi 


Contract, 177. Propertr, 667. 
Deed, 220. ETidence, 307. Noboe and DeiMMly 

Fraud, Ac. 367. 
Holden t. Otisfield First 

Parish, Assumpsit, 61. 

Holden T. Pike. Equity, 271. Mortgage, 463, 467. 

Holland t. Weld, Assampsit, 71. 

Holmes t. Baldwin, Officer, 483. Poor Debtors, 537, 544. 
Holmes T. Chadboume, Bail, 89. Poor Debtors, 643. 

Holmes t. Femald, 
Holmes t. Fox, 
Holt T. Walker, 
Helton T. Bangor, 
Homans t. Lambard, 
Homer t. Brainerd, 
Homes t. Smith, 
Homes t. Snuth, 
Homes t. Smyth, 
Hooper t. Brundage, 


xix. 66, Hoopec t. Day, 

Attachment, 75. 

ReTiew, 685. Writ, 682. 

Bankruptcy, 96. ETidence, 317, 

Tax, 68, 625. 

Contract, 183. Law and Fact, 423. 

Deposition, 234. 

Bills, Ac. 121, 132. ETidence, 284, 808. 

Bills, Ac. 118. 

BUb, Ac. 106, 126. 

Assignment, 63. Attorney, 88. Litn, 426, 

off; 608. 
Trustee Process, 641, 


Digitized by 



HO. — HU. 

^▼. 375, Hoo yr t. EnMry, 

SorptaM ReTOBM, OD. Towa, 

xxi. 999, 

XX. 449, 

xxiii. 101, 

U. 306, 
xiT. 400, 
XYi. 413, 
xWi. 266, 
xUi. 31, 

XT. S16, 

xxiY. 451, 

xix. 31, 

IT. 79, 

XXT. 116, 

XV. 350, 

T. 318, 

xvii. 85, 

xxii. 175, 

xii. 515, 

xi. 152, 

iv. 195, 
xxi. 385, 

▼i. 353, 

iii. 461, 

T. 15, 

JIT. 447, 

X. 335, 

Xiii. 122, 

XX. 325, 

SeleotoMa, 607. 

Costs, 192. Reriew, 586. 
Jndjniieiit, 406. ' Ssle, 595. 
BankniptcT, 95. Damages, 211. Poor Debtors, 

Actions, Ac. 10. Notice snd DemaB<f, 478, 479. 
Law and Fact, 421, 422. Sale, 591. 
Release, dsc. 579. Shipping, 611. 
Replevin, 581. 
AgencT, 14, 25. Deed, 229. Evidence, .285. 

Will, 667. 
Condition, 152. Deed, 229. Gnunts, Ac. 871, 372. 
Poor Debtors, 538, 543. 
Bills, 4^. 114, 115, 117, 125. Interest, 399. 
Agenej, 22. Indorser of Writ, 388. Scire Fa- 
cias, 599, 600. 
Assignment, 58. 

Contract, 175, 179. Law and Fact, 420. 
Error, 272. 
Contract, 175. 
Guaranty, 374, 375. 
Evidence, 304. Execution, 328. 
Bills, dbe. 110. Contract, 171. 

Witness, 675. 
Evidence, 304. Fraud, Ac. 350. 
Costs, 194. Damages, 211. 

Poor Debtors, 541, 542. 
Trustee Process, 642. 
Howard v. Chadboume, Witness, 671. 
Howard v. Chadboume, Pleadin|(, 530. Real Actions, 575. 
Howard v. Folger, Deposition, 234. Exceptions, 320. 

^ «;0. Practice, 561. 

Howard v. Hutchinson, Way, 658, 659, 666. 

Hopkins v. Benson, 
Hopkins v. Hersey, 
Horn V. Nason, 

Hosmer v. Clark, 
Houdlette v. Tallman, 
Houston V. Darling, 
Hovey v. Coy, 
Hovey v.Deane, 

Hovey T. Deane, 
Hovey j, Hamilton, 
Howe V. Bradley, 
How V. Codman, 

Howe V. Handley, 
Howe V. Huntington, 
How V. Merrill, 
Howe V. Mitchell, 
Howe V. Nickels, 
Howe V. Reed, 
Howe V. Thompson, 

HoWe V. Ward, 
Howard v. Brown, 

Howard v. Card, 

Fraud, 4bc. 361. 
Limitations, 439. 

New Trial, 476. 

Witness, 676. 

Howard v. Lincoln, 
Howard v. Min«r, 

Deed, 229. Sale, 591. Tresi 

Bills, Ac. 111. Contract, V 

Amendment, 31. 

Execution, 328. 
Howard v. Wadsworth, Deed, 227. 

vi. 106, Howard v. Turner, 

iU. 471, 

ii. 390, 

iu. 202, 

zxv. 333, 



Condition, 153. Deed, 228. 

Dspass, 6 
n, 182. 

xix. 322, 

xi. 475, 

i. 11, 

XV. 198, 

X. 140, 

j^viii. 400, 

vii. 158, 

xxii. 380, 

xviii. 262, 

XX. 312, 
xxiv. 339, 
X^vi. 271, 

XX. 28, 

xvi. 290, 

yiii. 167, 

ii. 375, 

Howard v. Witham, 
Howes V. Shed, 
Hoxie V. Somerset Co, 

Hoxie V. Weston, 

Bills, Ac. 105. 
Criminal Law, 202. 

Logs, 440. 

Mandamus, 443. 

Bond, 142. Jail, 400 
Tax, 622. 
Hoyt V. Byrnes, Agency, 16. Tender, 626. 

Hubbard V. Cummings, In&nt, 390, 391 

Poor Debtors, 535, 532. 

Hubbsrd v. Hubbard, 
Hubbard v. Remick, 
ilnghesv. Uttlefield, 

Hume V. Vance, 
Humphreys v. Cobb, 
Hunnewell v. Young, 
Hunt V. Elliot, 
Hunt V. Haskell, 
Huntv. Wadleigh, 
Huntress v. Patten, 

Huntress v. Wheeler, 
Hose V. Brown, 
Huse V. Meniam, 

Joint Tenants, Ac. 402. 

Execution, 334. Fraud, Ac. 360. 

Abatement, 4. Bills, Ac, 107, 110, 123, 133. 
Surety, 618. 

Militia, '4:')!. 

Attachment, 81, 63. 

Practice, 660. Trustee Process, 645. 

Evidence, 285. Practice, 549. 

Bailment, 91. Damagea, 206. Lien, 429. 

Bills, Ac. 116, 120, 135. 

Bills, 4^. 135. Guaranty, 375. Usury, 649. Wit- 
ness, 677. 

Poor Debtors, 542. 

Executors, ^. 342, 345. 

Assessors, 4)3. 

Digitized by 


iii. 174, 
xzri. 76, 
XYiii. 393, 

HD.— JO, 

Mnmmj t. Dole, 
Hatchina ▼. Adams, 
If atcJuns T. Drefter, 
UotohinMii V. Mooc^, 


,141. Eqaitr. 957, 968,8611 
Exeoutora, &o. 341, 343. Jodfiiieiit, 404. 
Guardian, 377. 
ETidMftce, 316. Nav Trial, 477. Svretj, 618. 


Ti. 79, 

zxi. 474, 

XT. 373, 

IT. 237, 

xxiT. 155, 

T. 171, 

XTiu. 418, 

Iiif^la T. Dennett, 
Ingersoll t. Barker, 
Inpmham t. Martin, 
Inman t. Jackaon, 

Ireland t. Abbott, 
Irish T. Webater, 
Irring t. Thomas, 

Surety, 618. Trustee Proceas, 641. 

Aasigument, 57. ETidence, 305. Fraud, 4ke. 358. 

Mortgage, 470. Replevin, 580, 581, 583. 

Deed, 913, 914. Devise, Sui. 238. Proprietors 

of Common Lands, 568. 
Mortgage, 466, 468. 
Assumpsit, 71. Land Asent, 414. 
Contract, 167, 180. Evidence, 987. Exceptions, 

391. Fraud, 4fcc. 359. PncUce, 654, 555, 558, 

559. Sale, 586. 


xii. 494, 

ZTi. 184, 

XX. 37, 

xxii. 569, 
XTi. 187, 
XX. 495, 
xiT. 34, 

xxiii. 987, 

i. 196, 

XIX. 293, 

xXTi. 475, 

xxiT. MP, 

XX. 183, 

XTt. 393, 

xxiT. 493, 

Tui. 30, 

▼. 87, 

Ti. 381^ 

itL 107, 

▼iii. 447, 

ii. 336, 

iu. 103, 

XiT. 116, 

xU. 5M3, 

i. 125» 

xi- 346, 

K 230, 

JaeksoB t. Belmont, 
Jackson v. Hampden, 
Jackaon t. Hampden, 

Jackson t. SlieUon, 
Jacobs ▼. Bangor, 
Jameson t. Balmer, 
Jameson ▼. Head, 
Jarris t. St Croix Man. 

Jefierson t. Litchfield, 
Jefferson t. Washington, 
Jenness t. Lane, 

Jenness t. Parker, 
Jenney t. Delesdemier, 
Jennings v. Estes, 
Jepson V. Hall, 
Jewett Y. Adams, 
JeTTStt T. Bailej, 
Jewett T. Barnard, 
Jewett ▼. Comibrth, 

Jewett T. Felker, 
Jewett T. Greene, 
Jewett T. Hodgdon, 
Jewett T. Hodgdon, 
Jewett T. Lincoln, 

Jewett T. Patridge, 
Jewett T. Somerset, 
Jewett V. Weston, 
Johnson's case, 



xi. »»» 

xxiii. 154 , 

▼ii. 370, 

XT. 99, 

Johnson t. 
Johnson y. 
Johnson y. 
Johnson y. 
Johnson y. 

Aiistimpsit, 59. 

Schools, Ac. 597. 

EYidenoe, 314. Praetice, 549. Schools, 4bc. 507, 

Deed, 316, 990. Escrow, 973. EYidence, 889. 
New Trial, 475, 477. Verdict, 651. Wa7,66S. 
Deed, 232. 
Equity, 267. Execution, 332. 

Bills, Ac. 115. 

Alien, 26. Panper, 507, 512. 

Error, 973. Pauper, 511, 513. 

Billa, Ac. 129. Contract, 170, 174. Payment, 

BUls, Ac, 107, 106. 

Attorney, 85. New Trial, 475. Witness, 676. 
Partnerahip, 503. Practice, 553. 
Bond, 141. 






WitncM, 676. 

Execution, 325. Mortgage, 459. 

Assignment, 55. 

Contract, 181. Law and Fact, 

593. Practice, 566. 
Execution, 334. Practice, 549. 
Limitations, 436, 437. 
Error, 272. Practice, 560. 
Contract, 181 

Surety, 619. 
421. Pleading, 

EYidence, 289. 

Mortgage, 460. 
Assumpsit, 58. 
Assumpsit, 70. 

New Trial, 476. Sale, 588, 

Property, 567. 
Contract, 165. 
Pleading, 523. 

TroYcr, 637, 638. 

Way, 666. 
■umpsit, 7U. needing, 0519. 
Appeal, 34. Constitutional Law, 162. Criminal 

Xaw, 202. 
Deed, 225. 
Guardian, 375, 376. 

Actions, Ae. 10. Master and Serrant, 444. 
Damages, 207. EYidenee, 287. Limitations, 433. 
Assessors, 49. Collector, 149. Tax, 622. 


Digitized by 




zxiii. 3il9, JohntOB t. Heagan, 

▼iii. 157, Johnaon t. Rice, 

xi. 49, Johnaon ▼. Richarda, 

xTii. 401, Johnaon t. Thayer, 

XTiii. 286, Johnaon t. Whitefield, 

▼i. 448, Jonea t. Cary, 

Ti. 296, Jonea ▼. Farlej, 

xriii. 308, Jonea ▼. Jonea, 

XTiii. 155, Jonea t. M. M. F. laa. 

Co. - 

XTi. 411, Jonea ▼. I^erce, 

xvi. 301, Jordan v. Eldridge, 

iy. 175, Jordan y. Jordan, 

xy. 167, Jordan y. Robinaoni 

yii. 335, Jordan y. Sjlyeater, 

xxiii. 407, Jordan y. Symonda, 

xxi. 339, Joaaelyn y. Hatchinaon, 

xxyi. 330, Joy y. Adama, 

yiii. 455, Joy y. Foaa, 

iii. 131, Joy y. Oxford County, 

iy. 101, Joyce y. Ry«n, 

yii. 337, Judd y. Porter, 

yii. 9, Judluna y. Earl, 

yiii. 442, Jadkina y. Lanoey,* 

xyii. 38, Jodkina y. Walker, 

xiy. 364, Junkina y. Simpaon, 

JO.— KE. 

Biila, Ac. 110. Eyidence, 302. 
Mortgage, 464. 

Abatement, 5. Repleyin, 581. 
Aaaignment, 50. Truatee IVoceaa, 644, 645. 
Way, 662. 
A^noy, 16. Bailment, 91 . 
Abatement, 4. Diyorce, 242. Eyidence, 309. 
Stotutea, 615. 

Landlord and Tenant, 419. 
Judgment, 406. 

Inaurance, 396. 
Milla, 457. 
Way, 658. 
Asaumpait, 67. 
Eyidence, 306. 

435, 439. 
Ooater, 491. 
Witneaa, 675. 
Deyiae, &^. 238. 
Eyidence, 300. Law and Fact, 423 

436. Mortjnge, 465. 
Aaaampait, 69. fiilla, Ac. 126. 
Aaaumpait, 64. Court of Seaaiona, 196. 

Aaaumpait, 59. 

Contract, 81. Inaolyent La:wa,^396. 
Aaaumpait, 61. 

Agency, 16. Eyidence, 297. 
Infknt, 390, 391. 
Contract, 171. Frand, dbc. 359. Bale, 594. 




i. 226, Kanayan'a caae, 

ii. 397, Kayanagh y. Aakina, 

yiii. 422, Kayanagh y. Saundera, 

xxy. 126, Keene y. Chapman, 

xix. 368, Keene y. Houghton, 

iii. 77, Keene y. Sprague, 

iii. 393, Keith y. Reynolda, 

xyii. 444, Kellar y. Sayage, 

XX. 199, Kellar y. Sayage, 

xxiii. 192, Kelley y. Kelley, 

xyiii. 244, Kelly y. Low, 

xiy. 228, Kelley y. Merrill, 

zx. 232, Kelley y. Weaton, 

xiy. 30, 

xy. 131, 

yii. 171, 

xiii. 245, 

ix. 22, 

xyi. 38, 

xxy. 39, 

V. 130, 

Kendall y. Field, 
Kendall y. Galyin, 
Kendall y. Kendall, 
Kendall y. White, 
Kendrick y. Gregory, 
Keniaton y. Rowe, 
Kennard y. Burton, 
Kennebec Bank y. 

Indictment, 383. 

Coata, 192. Reyiew, 584. 

Bond, 136. Poor Debtora, 541, 542, 543. 

Suryeyor, Ac. 621. 

Collector, 150. Contract, 169. Tax, 623. 

Agency, 23. Inftnt, 300. New Trial, 474. Pa- 

rentand Child, 491. 
Deed, 221. 

Amendment, 32. Collector, 150. Town, 631, 632. 
Abatement, 5. Aaaeaaora, 49. Collector, 150. 

Estoppel, 277. Pleading, 523. Practice, 549. 

Town, 632. 
Bettermenta, 100, 101, 102. Landtord and Tenant, 

414. Seizin, Ac. 604. 
Damagea, 209. 
Aaaumpait, 62. New Trial, 477. Practice , 5S8. 

Shioping, 612. 
Attachment, 74. Landlord and Tenant, 416. 

Property, 567. 
Eyidence, 311. Witneaa, 671. 
Bills, Slc. 103, 112. 
Contract, 165, 169. 

Amendment, 27. Eyidence, 307. Officer, 488. 
Escape, 273. Poor Debtora, 539, 543. 
Bastardy, 97, 98. 
Evidence, 317. Way, 665, 666* 

Surety, 618. 

Digitized by 




KE. — KU. 

ii. 48, Kennebee Bank t. 

Tomer, Eitoppel, S74. 

iii. 314, Kennebeo Loc Drir- 

inf , Co. T. Burrill, Conit. Law, 164. Contract, 166. Logt, 440. 
Kennebec Proprietors ) Abandonment. 1* Betterment!, 99. Scire Faeiaa. 

T.DaTif, 5 699. ^^ 

Kennebec Proprieton 

T. Daria, Bettermenta, 100. Coeta, 199. 

Kennebec Proprietora ▼. 

KaTanaah, Bettermenta, 99. 

Kennebec Proprietore t. 

Laboree, Coaat. Law, 160. 

Kennebec Proprietori v. 

Lowell, Plymoath Patent, 634. Eeal Actiona, 579. 

Kennebec Proprietora t. 

Tiffany, Deed, 290, S27. Evidence, 291. Plan, 591. 

Kennebnnk v. Alfred, Contagioiu Siekneee, 164. Panper, 513. 
Kennebonk Toll Bridge 

Proprietors, petitioners, Coonty Commisaionera, 195. Mandamoa, 449. 
Kennebnnkport t. Box* 

i. 309, 

ii. 352, 

L 348, 

iL 275, 

iL 149, 

i. 219, 

zix. 221, 
zi. 963, 

zzri. 61, 

zzii. 445, 

ziT. 54, 
Tii. 464, 

zL 459, 
Tii. 80, 

Yi. 116, 

zix. 310, 

zxri. 444, 

Seisin, 4kc. 609. 

Kennebonkport t. 

Kennedy T. Nilea, 
Kent T. Weld, 
Kidder t. Parlin, 
KiUsa T. Lermond, 
Kimball t. Davis, 
Kimball v. Irish, 

ii. 296, Kimball v. Kimball, 

ziv. 356, Kimball v. Littlefield, 

zviii. 359, Kimball v. Moody, 

iv. 368, Kimball v. Morrell, 

v. 353, Kimball v. Preble, 

zix. 900, Kimball t. Woodman, 

zi. 188, Kincaid v. Branswick 

8eho<d District, 

iv. 387, King v. Upton, 

Kinsell v. Daoett, 
Kinsley v. Abbott, - 
Kingsley v. Wallis, 
Kinonan v. Greene, 

Kirby v. Wood, 
Knight V. Bean, 
Knight V. Bean, 
Knijght V. Bean, 
EJoiight V. Gorham, 
Knight V. Mains, 
Knight V. Norton, 
Knight V. Sawin, 
Knowlton v. Planta- 
tion No. 4. 
Knoz V. Lermond, 
Knox V. Pickering, 
Knox T. Silloway, 

zi. 309, 
ziz. 430, 
xiv. 67, 
zvi. 60, 

xvL 81, 
zviii. 219, 

xix. 959, 

xxii. 531, 
iv. 499, 
xii. 41, 

XV. 337, 
vi. 861, 

xiv. 90, 

iii. 977, 

viii. 106, 

x. 901, 

iu. 455, 

V. 185, 

xiv. 409, 

Slc. 401 
Knox V. Waldoboroogh, Panper, 506, 510. 
Knox V. Waldoboroogh, Jadgment, 404 
Kohn V. Kaler, Dower, 246. 

Panper, 509, 513, 514. 

Limitations, 439. Panper, 515. 
Witness, 670. 

Attachment, 76. Deed, 217. 
Evidence, 983. Rolea of Coort, 586. 
Bail, 89, 90, 

Costs, 189. Pleading, 530. 
Attachment, 80. Officer, 489. Witness, 675. 
Amendment, 39. Exceptions, 393. Poor Debt- 
ors, 540. Practice, 555. 
Dower, 248. Estoppel, 275. 
Militia, 447. 

Appeal, 34. Exceptions, 391. 
Evidence, 981, 312. Practice, 550. 
Poor Debtors, 542, 543. 
Trostee Process, 639. 

AjKency, 18. Tender, 696. 

Bills, £c. 105. Franda, Statnte of^ 365. Prac- 
tice, 550. 

Estoppel, 275. Seizin, &c. 603. 

Joint Tenanfa, Ac, 400. Mortgage, 461. 

Contract, 171. Law and Fact, iSi. 

Biuermenta, 101. Deed, 214. Leaae, 424. SeU 
off, 608. 

Error, 272. Practice, 561. 

Appeal, 35. 

Api>eal,.35. Beview, 585. 

Actions, dkc. 10. Contract, 172. 

Trostee Process, 640. 

Deed, 229. Dower, 948. 

Damages, 210. Poor Debtors, 536. 

Contract, 166. Frauds, Statute of, 369. 

Aaency, 17. Assumpsit, 68. Practice, 547. 
Town, 639. 

Appeal, 35. Bettmnenta, 100. 

Deed, 222. 

Deed, 217, 233. Evidence, 282. Joint Tenants, 
Real Actions, 574. 

Digitized by 


nxn rMMLM or cint. 



ZTi. 964, Lamb v. Barnard* Agency, 25. Contract, 173. 

xxi. 340, Lamb ▼. Fobs, fiettennentf, 101. Mortgage, 403. Seisin, O06. 

zriii. 187, Lamb t. Franklin Man. 

Co. Tmatee Proceaa, 640. 

zxT. 306, Lambard v. Fowler, Amendment, 90. Officer, 486. 
zIt. 77, Lane t. Boriand, Mortgage, 470. 

xv. 904, Lane t. McKeen, Contract, 167. Eqnitj, 367. Hnaband and Wift, 

xii. 44, Lane t. Maine Mntoal 

F. I. Co. fnsnraace, 396. Pleading, 698. 

xv. 86, Lane t. Nowell, Truitee Proceaa, 641. 

ziT. 94, Lane t. Padelfbrd, Bills, Ac. 136, 131. Collateral Security, 146. 

Witneaa, 670. 
; zx. 98, Lane v. Steward, Billa, Ac. 119, 130, 123, 133. Evidence, 298. 

Uaury, 648. 
xi. 385, Lang t. Fiake, Assignment, 51, 59. Aasnmpsit, 65. 

xix. 314, Langdon t. Pickering, Equity, 257. Will, 667. 
Tiii. 85, Lapish t. Bangor Bank, Deed, 223. Plata, 352. 
Ti. 175, Lapiah ▼. WellB, Const. Law, 156. Fraod, Ac, 357. Granta, 4ke. 

373. Practice, 559. 
xxiv. 963, Larrabee ▼. Faiibanka, Bills, Ac. 135. 

vi. 222, Lasaell y. Reed, Fixtures, 352. Landlord and Tenant, 416. 

xxiii. 125, Latham t. Wilton, Arbitration, 44. Way, 661. 

xiy. 414, Lathrop ▼. Cook, Attachment, 82, 84. Replevin, 581. 

iv. 167, Law v. Law, Deposition, 234. Practice, 552. 

vii. 195, Lawrence v. Tucker, Attachment, 76. Deed, 217. 
xiii. 281, Lawry v. Williams, Deed, 215, 217. Estoppel, 276. Evidence, 368. 
viii. 405, Lawson v. Lovejoy, Infant, 390. 

xvii. 462, Leach v, Perkins, Abatement, 3. Evidence, 287. Usage, 647, 

xviii, 337, Leadbetter v. Blethen, Attachment, 76. Officer. 483. 
xiii. 365, Leadbetter v. E;^a Ina. 

Co., Condition, 153. Insurance, 396. 

xxiv. 351, Leathers v. Carr, Assignment, 53. Pleading, 526. Set-off, 606. 

iv. 161, Leavitt v. Leavitt, Blils, dtc. 103. New Tnal, 477. 

xvi. 72, Leavitt v. Savage, Surety, 618. 

xxiv. 316, Leballister V. Nash, Bills, ^^. 111. , 

X. 356, Leeds v. Freeport, Pauper, 506, 512. 

X. 161, Legrov. Lord, Fraud, &c. 360, 361. Tender, 636. 

xvi. 252, Legro v. Staples, Assignment, 50. Bills, Act 112. Trustee Pro- 

cess, 639, 643. ^ 

iv. 28, Leigh v. Horsum, Bills, ^kc. 134. 

iii. 43, Leighton v. Boody, Costs, 193. 
ii. 114, Leighton v. Lithgow, Review, 584. 
xiv. 306, Leighton v. Manson, Evidence, 311. Exceptions, 319. New Trials 

xix. 154, Leighton v. Stevens, Proper^, 567. Sale, 596. 
zzii. 353, Leighton v. Stevens. Sale, 590. 

z. 441, Levant Funds v. Parks, Bills, &c. 104, 130. Corporation, 188. Plead- 
ing, 522. 
iv. 180, Levy v. Merrill, Frauds, Statute of, 965. Insurance, 995, 996. 

xvii. 360, Lewis v. Freeman, Evidence, 286. 

xvii. 367, Lewis v. Uodgdon, Bills, frc. 106, 123, 126. New Trial, 476. Prac- 

tice, 552. Witness, 671, 674, 679. 

^^^^^|Lewi8T.Littlefield, Gaming, 370, Inftnt, 390. Wager, 653. 

viii. 173, Lewis v. Staples, Poor Debtors, 535. 

iii. 326, Lewis v. Webb, Constitutional Law, 163. 

v. 66, Lewiston v. North Yar- 
mouth, Constitutional Law, 161. Pauper, 505. 
XX. 47, Libbey v. Greenbnsh, Evidence, 302. Way* 664. 
xi. 344, Libby v. Main, Pleading, 525, 526. Recognizance, 577. 

Digitized by 


TAMLM or VJylM. 



ii. 103, 
ZTiii. 183, 

X. 418, 
i. 79, 




















xi. 133, 
XX. 257, 
xu. 39, 
xiT. 222, 
xxiv. 56, 
xiT. 349, 

ix. 62, 

XXTi. 1^ 

XXT. 18, 
xxi. 108, 

Lib^ T. 8o«l«, 
Ligonia t. Buxton, 
Limerick, p«titionen, 

Lincoln t. ATeiy, 
Lincoln and Kennebec 

Bank t. Kichardeoa, 
Lindaey t. Gordon, 
Linaoott t. Fernald, 
Linscott T. Mclntire, 
Liabon t. Merrill, 
Lithgow T. ETana, 
Little T. Cochran, 
Little T. Larrabec^ 
Little T. Lathrog, 
Little T. Libby, 
Little T. Mefquier, 
Little T. Palister, 
Little T. Palister, 
Little T. Thompson , 
Littlefield t. Kimball, 
Littlefield t. Leland. 
Littlefield t. Portland, 
Littlefield t. Smith, 
Littlefield t. Winslow, 
LiTermore, petitioners, 
Lloyd T. Jewell, 
Locke T. Brown, 

Locke T. Hall, 
Logan T. Monroe, 
Lombard t. Brackett, 
Lombard t. Cobb, 
Lombard t. Fiske, 
Lombard t. Pease, 
Lombard t. Ruggles, 
Longley t. Little, 
Longley t. Longley 

Stage Co. 
Longfellow t. Patrick, 
Longfellow t. Scam- 

TiL 38^ Loomis t. Green, 

XT. 270, 
xix. 196, 

XTiii. 178, 

Tiii. 198, 

ii. 67, 

xxiT. 499, 
xxi. 468, 
xu. 88, 

xxiii. 569, 
TuL 61, 
xii. 27, 

XXTi. 18, 

XTi. 421, 
XXT. 136, 

T. 450, 
XXTi. 119, 
XXT. 233, 

Lord T. 
Lord T. 
Lord T. 
Lord T. 
Lord T. 
Lord T. 
Lord T. 
Lord T. 
Lord T. 

T. Norton, 
T. O'Donnell, 
T. Proctor, 

Lothrop T. Abbott, 
Lothrop T Arnold, 

Lothrop T. Muzsy, 
Lothrop T. Page, 
Loud T. Pierce, 

U — LO. 

TroTer, 637. 

Marriace, 443. Minister, 458. 

Amen£nent, 31. Co«rts in General, 197. War, 

658, 659, 660. . 

EWdence, 295. 

Bank, 92. Contract, 165. Corporatioii, 184. 

Contract, 182. 

Deed, 222. ETidence, 292. 

t^ontract, 170. Fraads, Statute of, 368, 369. 

County Commissioners, 195. Way, 656, 660. 

A ssignment, 52. 

Certiorari, 146. Poor Debtors, 538, 539. 

New Trial, 474. Verdict, 651. 

Fence, 348. Impoanding, 381. 

ETidence, 312, 313. Seisin, Ac. 603, 606. 

Seizin, dtc. 602. 

Landlord and Tenant, 416. Trespass, 633. 

EWdence, 298. Landlord and Tenant^ 416. 

Logs, 440. Pleading, 525. Verdic^650. 

Execution, 333. Officer, 488. 

Militia, 451. 

Witness, 673, 675, 677. 

Assignment, 51. Trustee Process, 644. 

Bond, 140. Contract, 183. 

County Commissioners, 196. Way, 656. 

Bills, Ac, 104, 127. 

ETidence, 289. Frauds, Statute of, 366. Law 

and Fact, 422. 
Partnership, 499. 

Deposition, 234. Practice, 552, 555, 556. 
Pleading, 531. 
Pleading, 523. 
Contract, 180. 
Limitations, 438. 

Betterments, 100. Frauds, Statute of, 367. 
Corporation, 187, 188. 

Corporation, 187. 
Constitutional Law, 164. 

Probvte Court, 566* 

Poor Debtors, 539. 

Damages, 206. Estoppel, 279. ETidence, 301 
Sale, 595. 

Bills, &c. 116, 117, 135. Presumption, 563. 

Practice, 556. 

Attorney, 87. Currency, 204. 

Bills, Ac. 119. 

Parish, 493, 494. 

Innholders, Ac, 393. Lien, 429. 

Bond, 142. Constable, 156. 

Deed, 229. 

Fraud, Ac. 359. Writ, 682. 

Deed, 222. 

Bastardy, 98. 

Amendment, 30. 
snranoe, 396. 

Attachment, 84. ETidence, 307. 

Abatement, 4. Arbitration, 44. ExceptioBs, 322. 
Joint Tenants, ^^. 403. OAoer, 469. Plead- 
ing, 524. 

Witness, 673. 

C. C. Pleas, Sui. 196. Courts in General, 197, 198. 

Bankruptcy, 96. Exceptions, 321 . 

C. C. Pleas, Ac. 196, 197. In- 

Digitized by 



TABI«C 0r €AtSB. 

zziii. 373, Lorejoj t. Hutchiiu, 

iv. 439, Low^i eaie, 

xrri. 186, Low t. Kaowhofl, 

XTii. 938, Low T. Manhall, 

ZTiii. 378, Low t. Mitchel], 

iii. 956, Low t. Rom, 

xii. 441, Low t. Treadwetl, 

zx. 401, Lowell t. Fliat, 

XX. 405, Lowell ▼. Flint, 

xiT. 340, Lowell t. Johnton, 

xii. 300, Lowell v. Moscow, 

ix. 85, Lowell t. Reding, 

xri. 357, Lowell ▼. Robinson, 

XT. 343, Lowell t. Sbmw, 

XX. 336, Lownej ▼. Perhiun, 

iii. 390, Lnbee v. Eastport, 

xxiv. 85, Ludwif t. Bitckintoa, 

xrii. 168, Lndwig y. Foller, 

Ti. 418, Lnnt's case, 

xrii. 330, Lont v. Aduns, 

xiii. fX36f Lnnt ▼. Brown, 

XYi. 9, Lnnt t. Hunter, 

i. 17, Lnnt t. Knight, 

xxir. 534, Lont t. Stevens, 

X. 310, Lnnt t. Whitaker, 

xix. 100, Lnnt ▼. Wormell, 

xxvi. 514, Lnqaes t. Thompson, 

i. 183, Ljman v. Estes, 

xxiii. 389, Ljman t. Redman, 


Attachment, 80, 81 . Officer, 484, 465, 486^ 490. 
ConstitntioBal Law, 168. Indictment, 387. 
Actions, Ac. 10. Aqnatie Rights 97. NniMaee, 

Condition, 158, Corenant, 301. 
Bastardy, 97, 98. Constitutional Law, 163. Gnai^ 

dian, 376. Witness, 678. 
Justice of the Peace, 411. Pleading, 588. 
Equity, 356, 367. ETtdence, 394. 
Error, 371. Militia, 449, 450, 458, 454. 
Error, 971. 
Usorr, 648. 
Way, 663. 
Agency, 14 
Deed, 384, 396. 
Mills, 457. 
Actions, Ac. 9. 

BUls, Ae. 113. 
Eridence, 395. 

Bills, Ac. 133, 188, 133. EqnitT, 
358. Eridence, 899. Practice, 564, 556. Wit^ 
ness, 678. 

Pauper, 505. 

Execution, 384. Executors, &o. 389, 341, 343. 
InsoWent Estate, 394. 

Sale, 687, 589. 

Constitutional Law, 163, 16T. Innholders, 991. 
Statutes, 616. 

Actions, Ac. 11. Bills, Ac. 117, 135. 

Trespass, 635. 

Constitutional Law, 163. Fisheries, 360, 351. 

Costs, 193. Practice, 561. 

Assignment, 53. Limitations, 436, 438. Partner- 
ship, 501. Release, Ac. 579. 

Mortgage, 469. 

Collector, 150. Practice, 550. 

Bond, 141, 143. 

Executors, Ac. 348. Set-off, 607. 

Agency, 19. New Trial, 476. Shipping, 61 1,613. 


xxii. 80, McAllister v. Brooks, 

XXV. 474, McAllister ▼. Sibley, 

xv. 345, McArthur t. Lane, 

XTii. 158, McCobb t. Healey, 
xxiv. 8SI, McCobb t. Richardson, 
xiv. 101, McDonald y. Bailey, 

xIt. 99, McDonald w. Smith, 

XT. 385, McDonald t. Trafton, 

xxii. 330, McGuire t. Say ward, 

xxiii. 330, McKeoknia t. Hoskins, 

XTiii. 140, McKeen t. PagOt 

It. 178, MoKenney t. Din^ley, 

XX. 349, MeKenney v. Waite, 

xxi. 98, MeKenney t. Whipple, 

xxii. 138, McKenzie t. Nevius, 

xii. 94, McKim t. Odom, 

Tiii. 334, McLane t. Bachelor, 

Assignment, 53. Trustee Process, 644, 645. 

Jury, 410. Libel and Slander, 486, 

Abatement, 3, 6. Damages, 807. ReploTin, 580, 

ETidence, 314. 

Equity, 365. 

Bills, Sui, 118. Practice, 557. Rules of Court, 

Bills, Ac. 185. Exceptions, 319. New Trial, 477. 
Practice, 557. 

Exceptions, 323. Law and Fact, 428. Sale, 594. 

Evidence, 883. MiUtia, 454. 

Deed^ 318. 

Bills, Ac. 188. 

ETidenoe, 286, 304. Fraud, Ac. 356. 

ETidence, 890. New Trial, 475. 

BiUs, Ac. 113, 130. 

Agency, 23. Lien, 488. Payment, 518. 

Assumpsit, 60. Debt, 313. Equity, 353. Judg- 
ment, 408. 

Witness, 673. 

Digitized by 




xrii. 184, 

joii. 308, 

vL 307, 

McL«Uak T. Co^mu, 
McLdiUa T. Ci«lloa, 

Officer, 4841 Scire Feciae, 601. 
AmeiidiDeBt, 87. AjMuapMt, 61. BiUe,Ac. 109. 
ETuieace, S99, 301, 31^. Jury, 410. ' 
tioBi, 436. 
uiT. 566, MeLellaaT.Cttai- ) Actieo on Caee, 13. fiTideaoe, 996. Rele 
berlaa4Beak« { 4kc 579. 

xzi. 390, McLeUui t. Kenaebeo 

Co«nt J Coam'ri, Way, 661 . 
McLelUa ▼. Luat, Limitatioaf, 439. 

McLellaa y. boat, Limitaticae, 438. 

Mcl^llaa T. RichardMMi, Evideace, 317. New Trial, 477. 































xiT. 444, 

xix. 198, 

xxiii. 350, 

xii. 38, 

X. 49, 

xxiT. 98, 

XTi. 433, 

T. 108, 

xiL 117, 

XiT. 195, 

< XX. 84, 

xxi. 86, 

ii. 165, 

xxiT. 407, 

xix. 150, 

xxiii. 55, 

xxii. 381, 

iii. 73, 
xu. 402, 
xi. 54, 
XT. 17, 
xi. 58, 

xxiT. 513, 
i. 333, 

XTiiL 83, 

L 394, 
xxT. 595, 

XTiii. 49, 

xiT. 463, 

McLellaa t. Tomer, 
McLellaa t. Walker, 
NcNear t. Atwood, 
McNear t. Bailey, 
Machiaa t. Whitaey, 
Macomber t. 8lMrey, 
Maddocks t. Jelliaoa, 
Maddox T. Goddard, 

DcTiae, Ae. 838. 

Attorney, 88. 

AnigBMeat, S3. TroTCr, 637. 
Arbitratioa, 38, 39, 49, 44, 46. Efldeaee, 894. 
Deed, 985. EWdeace, 304. Graata, Slc. 373. 
Militia, 450. 

Bettermeots, 100. Real Acticaa, 575. 
Deed, 998, 931. Joiat Teaaata, 4kc. 409. 
Maiae Baak t. Uerrey, Abatemeat, 9, 4, 5. Aaiendmeat, 99. Arrest, 47. 

Practice, 547. Writ, 669. 
Maiae Baak T. Oibora, Coata. 190. 

Maiae Baak T. Smitk. BiUa, 4bo. 114, 119, 190, 133. Evidence, 993. 
Maiae Charity School t. 

DiMBOie, Real Actioaa, 579. Writ, 680. 

Maiae Stage Co. t. ) Ageacy, 14. ETideace, 985. Praetioe, 56L 

Loa^ey, 5 TroTer, 638. Witaeaa,674. 

Makia t. Portlaad SaT- 

iags laatitutioa, Aiawmpait, 66. SaTiaga laatitatioa, 596. 

Makia t. Portlaad SaT- 

iags laatitotioa, 
Maaa t. MaraloA, 
Maaaiag t. Browa, 
Maasfield t. Jack, 
Maaafield t. Ward, 
Maaaoa t. Gardiaer, 
Maaolkctarer'a Baak t. 

Mart>re t. Sbow, 
MaicJi T. Garlaikd, 
Mareaa t. Loagley, 
Mariner t. Dyer, 

Marks t. Hapgood, 
Marr t. Bootbby, 
Marr t. GiTca, 
Marr T. Hobsoa, 

Marr t. Plomoier, 
Marshall t. Baker, 
Marshall v. Joaes, 
Marshall t. Smith, 
Marshall t. Winslow, 
Marrtoa t. Humphrey, 
Martia T. Abbott, 
Martia t. Fales, 

Martia t. Martia, 
Marwick t. Aadrews, 

Marwick t. Georgia 

Lomber Co. 
Maaon t. Bridge, 

Partaership, 498. SaTiags lastitutaoB, 596 

Way, 658, 659, 665. 

Bills, Ac. 103. Coatract, 175. 

Executioa, 397. 

Limitatioas, 433. 

Executors, 4bc. 341. Limitatioas, 439. 

. Pleas, 4be. 196. Piao. 

Seisin, Ae.606b 


Trustee Process, 648. 

Costs, 199. 

Bills, 4bc. 198. 

Gaaiiag, 371. 

Bastardy, 97, 98, 90. C. C. 

tice, 561. 
Psssamaauoddy ladiaas, 504. 
Deed, 990. Executors, Ac. 337. 
Ageacy, 17. Deed, 914. 
Deed, 919. 990, 939. Executors, Ac. 338. 

titioa, 496. 
Ageacy, 18. 

Evidence. 994. New Trial, 475. 
Assumpsit, 70, 71. 
Estoppel, 976. Pleadiag, 594. 
Partaership, 499. 
Equity, 958, 964, 967, 968. 
Attaetuaeat, 79. Trustee P ro ces s , 639. 
Jnrisdictioa, 409. Justice of the Peace, 411, 413. 

WaiTcr, 653. 
Deed, 915. Husband and Wife, 379. 
Devise, &c. 940. Eatry, 959. Equity, 959. Seis- 


Practice, 553. Witaess, 674, 676. 
Arbitration, 40. Contract, 179. 

Digitized by 


TASLc or cisst. 

zz. 77, Mmod t. Hotchingf, 

ziT. 163, Mmob t. Walker, 

ZY. 400, Matthews t. BIomoid, 

ZZT. 157, Matthews t. Bowman, 

zzii. 312, Matthews t. Demerritt, 

z. 490, Matthews v. Houghton, 

zi. 377, Matthews v. Houghton, 

ii. 8, Mazwell t. Pike, 

ii. 907, Mead ▼. Small, 

TU. 132, Means t. Blafcesburg, 

Tu. 146, Means t. Osgood, 

zziv. 36, Medomak Bank ▼. 

zzi. 901, Melius t. Snowman, 

zii. 982, Melody ▼. Chandler, 

z. 397, Melvin t. WibsIow, 

ziii. 439, Merriam t. Mitchell, 

zriii. 407, Merrick t. Parkraan, 

zziii. 538, Merrill t. Burbank, 

ZT. 496, Merrill t. Call, 

vi. 419, Memll v. Crockett, 

zviii. 979, Merrill v. Curtis, 

zrii. 191, Merrill t. Gatchell, 

zzvi. 934, Merrill v. Hampden, 

zziT. 196, Merrill ▼. How, 

iii. 463, Merrill ▼. Merrill, 

zziT. 89, Merrill t. Parker, 

zziT. 937, Merrill t. Walker, 

Till. 198, Merritt t. Lumbert, 

It. 59, Mesenre v. Dyer, 

iii. 43, Mesenre v. Elwell, 

zzvi. 900, Metcalf ▼. Hilton, 

zzY. 354, Methodist Chapel t. 


ziii. 391, Middle Bridce T. Brooks, 

zzTi. ^6, Middle Bridge ▼. Marks, 

zviii. 387, MUiay v. Millaj, 

IT. 159, Miller t. Laneaster, 

Tii. 51, Miller ▼. Mariner's 

zziii. 99, Miller ▼. Miller, 

ZZY. 110, Miller y. Miller, 

zzYi. 78, Millett y. Stoneham, 

i. 343. Milliken y. Coombs, 

zzYi. 494, Milliken y. Southgate, 

ZYiii. 415, Milo y. Harmony, 

zi. 455, Milo y. Kilmarnock, 

z. 450, Mitchell y. Allen, 

zziii. 475, Mitchell y. Belknap, 

Iy. 124, Mitchell v. Osgood, 

ZY. 176, Munroe y. Conner, 

ZY. 153, Munroe y. Reding, 

zi. 947, Moody y. Moody, 

ziY. 307, Moody y. Moody. 

ZY. 905, Moody y. Moody, 

ZYi. 23, Moody y. Nichols, 

ziY. 995, Moody y. Sewall, 

Y. 415, Moody y. Towle, 

MA. — MO. 

ArrMt,47. Offieer, 406. Writ, 689. 

Limitations, 430. Real Actions, 579. 

Amendment, 96. Practice, 548, 556. Writ, 661. 

Militia, 446, 447, 446, 451, 459, 453, 454. 

Deed, 918. Real Actions, 579. * 

BiUs, Ac. 135. EYidenoe, 313, 31€. 

Bills, &e. 119. Justice of the Peace, 419. Trus- 
tee Process, 645. 

Actions, Ac. 7. Attachment, 79. 

Bills, Ac. Ill, 116. 

Pauper, 516. 

Amendment, 31, 33. £zec«tion, 396, 390. 

Ageney, 19. Bank, 93. BUls, Ac. 194. EyI- 
dence, 294. Ezecutors, Ae. 339. InsoWent 
EsUte, 394. Set-off, 607. ? 

Husband and WiA, 380. Limitations, 431. Pat- 
tition, 497. 

Mortgage, 469. TVoyer, 637. 

Repleyin, 582. 

Eyidence, 308. Malicious Prosacntion, 449. New 
Trial, 477. 

Bills, &c. 130, 133. Eyidence, 316. Practice,553. 

Deed, 213, 215. Ezecution, 327. Trespass, 634. 

Contract, 167. 

Reyiew, 584. 

Attachment, 75, 78. Sale, 569. 

Eyidence, 306. Impounding, 389. 

Practice, 559. Way, 663, 664. 

Damages, 207. 

Bet-off, 607. 

Sale, 588. 

Indorser of Writ, 388, 389. • 

Abatement, 9. Repleyin, 589. 

Fraud, Ac. 359. 

Costs, 193. 

Poor Debtors, 599. 

Corporation, 169. Eyidence, 306. Practice, 555. 
Corporation, 185. Tolls, Ac. 698. 
Constitutional Law, 164. 
Entry, 959. Landlord and Tenant, 415. Pne^ 

tice, 559. 
Law and Fact, 490. Limitations, 437. 

Damages, 908. Practice, 559. Witness, 673, 678. 
Fraud, Ac. 359,361. 

Amendment, 39. Ezecution, 335, 336. Officer. 
469. . . f 

Town, 699. 

Agency, 17. Estoppel, 974. 

Eyidence, 995. Interest, 399. 

Pauper, 506, 507, 519. 

Pauper, 507. 

Agency, 14. Assignment, 50. 

Eyidence, 311. 

Actions, Ac. Jl. Eyidence, 306. Judgment, 407. 

Partnership, 500. 

E xecution, 328, 330. 

Eyidence, 297. Ezecutors, Ac. 337. Probate 

Court, 565. 
Assumpsit, 68. 
Joint Tenants, Ac. 402. 
Deed, 224. Eyidence, 314. LimiUtions, 431. 
Pleading, 523. 
Bills,Ac.l26. Set-off, 606. 

Digitized by 


or OMM. 


!▼. 5177, 
XTiu. 14S, 

Mooaej r. Karaaagk, 
Moore v. Bond, 

xzir. 343, Mooie v. Boyd, 

MO. — NA. 

Attaokment, 78. 
Bond, 140. EzcestiMM, 39C 
588,&39,540. Time, 637. 

390. Poor Deklon, 537, 

xi. 367, 

ziii. 393, 

XTi. 63, 

zxii. 360, 

xxi. 960, 

ir. 44, 

▼. 490, 

xvl. 11, 

i. 3S3, 

ziii. 415, 

i. :tS3, 

i. 348, 

ZTiii. 403, 

ui. 474, 

xxi. 660, 

X. 431, 
xxii. 180, 
xxT. 496, 

xxi. 63, 
xxii. 17, 

xiz. 109, 
xxU. 357, 

▼i. 143, 
Tii. 44, 
Till. 9, 

XV. 1»B, 
xiii. 163, 
xvi. 53, 
XT. 871, 
xU. 135, 

xi 135, 

xxiy. 383, 

ixY. 76, 

xiu. 110, 
XX. 341, 

XTui. 349, 

xxi. 535, 

xi. 338, 

T. 196, 

xix. 161, 

xzir. 559, 

iii. 390, 

Moore v. ComTiUe, 
Moore t. Comville, 
Moore r. Fletcher, 
Moore t. Grifin, 
Moore v. Moore, 
Moore v. Newfield, 
Moore y. Smith, 
Morrill ▼. Haywood, 
MorreU t. KimbaU, 
Morrill T. Morrill, 
MorreU v. Rocers, 
Morrell v. STlVeeter, 
Morrieon ▼. Fowler, 
Morrieoo t. Keen, 
Mornson y. McDonald, 

Morriaon v. Witham, 
Morae r. Holt, 
Morae v. Page, 
Morae y. Rice, 
Morae y. WUliama, 
Mortoo y. Barrett, 
Morton y. Barrett, 

Morton y. Chandler, 
Morton r. Chandler, 
Morton y. Chandler, 

Morton y. Chaae, 
Morton y. Thompaon, 
Morton y. White, 
Moaher y. Moaher, 
Moahier y. Reding, 

Moaher y. Robie, 
Moalton y. Blaiadell, 
Moohon y. Joae, 

Moalton y. Monhon, 
Mount Deaert y. Sea- 

Madget y. Kent, 
March y. Tomer, 
Murray y. Nealley, 
Murray y. Ulmer, 
Mnaaey y. McLellan, 
Musaey y. Pierre, 
Musaey y. White, 

Amemfanent, 30. Landlord and Tennat, 418, 

Aetiona, 4kc. 10. Sonreyor, Ae. 630. 
Snryeyor, Slc, 630. 
Deed, 330, 331. 

Deed, 838. Flata,353. Witneaa,673. 
Eyidence, 388. Seisin, dui, 605. Treapaaa, 634. 
Eyidenoe, 385. Schoola, &c. 597. 
Executora, &e. 340, 343. Limitationa, 433. 
Militia, 448. 
Reyiew, 584. 
Executora, dbc. 346. 
Eyidenoe, 306. 
Collector, 149. Town, 631. 
Deed, 331. 
Conatituttonal Law, 164. Conrta in General, 197. 

Judge, 403. Municipal Court, 473. Practice, 

Militia, 446, 447, 453. Pleading, 595. 
Truatee Procem, 639. 
Ezecutora, ^bc. 3^. 

Conatitntional Law, 161. Poor Debtoca, 545. 
Payment, 517. 
Eyidenoe, 985, 391, 308. 
Deyiae, &c. 840. Heira, 378. Traata,646. Will, 

Aaaumpait, 61. Ezeoation, 334. 
Aaaompatt, 73. Eyidence, 897. 
Aaaumpait, 63. Fraud, 4ke. 357. Limitations, 

Aetiona, ^^. 11. Juatice of the Peace, 418. 
Forcible Entry, 354. 

Attachment, 80. Eyidence, 884. Officer, 485. 
Dower, 846. 
Estoppel, 375. Landlord and Tenant, 414, 417, 

Aaaeaaora, 49. Pariah, 494. 

Tax, 633. 

Ezeeptiona, 388. Officer, 488, 400. Poor Debt- 

ora, 536. 
Diyoroe, 348. Witneaa, 678. 

Pauper, 508. 
Ezeeptiona, 380. 
Bills, Ac. 198. Indiana, 383. 
Poor Debtora, 539. 
Appeal, 34. 
Surety, 619. 

Alien, 96. Ezeontion, 337. 
Aaaeeaon, 48. Collector, 149. 

Taz,633. Town, 

y. 479, Nason y. Allen, 

yi. 343, Naaon y. Alien, 

zzl 160, Naaon y. Grant, 

Tii. 39, Naaon y. Read, 


Dower, 244. Execution, 325. Pleading, 590. 
Dower, 948. Eatoppel, 975. 
Deed, 219. Execution, 326. Seixin, dtc. 603. 
Eyidence, 996. Witneaa, 673. 

Digitized by 



xxir. 115, 

xxiT. 831, 

zriii. 391, 

Xii. 440, 

xxi. 290, 

i. 139, 

vi. 218, 

i. 251, 

HL 360, 

xi. U8, 

xzT. 493, 

zvi. G9, 

liii. 999, 

XT. 21, 

XTui. 249, 

xir. 180, 

xiii. 93, 

XV. 314, 

xviii. 231, 

XTi. 245, 
xxY. 394, 
XX. 223, 
XV. 80, 
xix. 348, 
xir. 429, 
xviii. 332, 

xviit 324, 

xU. 293, 

XXV. 69, 

xxi. 217, 

vi. 21, 

iv. 521, 
XX. 359, 
XV. 45, 
XV. 14, 
X. 455, 
ii. 341, 
XV. 36, 

XX. 175, 

iii. 30, 

xi. 208, 

vi. 208, 

xiv. 320, 

ii. 75, 

viii. 220, 

XXV. 468, 

xviii. 104, 

Neal V. Braintrd, 
Neal V. Washborm, 
Neal V. WiUiuu, 
Neil V. Ford, 
Nebon v. Batterfield, 
Nelfoa V. Ja^oat, 

Nebon v. Onudej, 
Neiaon v. Woodbury, 
NewcasUo v. Bollard, 

NE.— NO. 

£viQOiio6, 300. 

lodoner of Writ, 389. 

Fraad, &e. 363. Smie, 593. 

Poor Debton, 536, 546. 

Deod,226. Milla, 455, 456. Pr««!ription, 562. 

Exeeuton, Ac. 339. Probate AoeowitB, 563. Pro- 
bate Bonda, 565. 

Abaent Defeodanta, 6. 

Execatora, Ac. 339. Inaolvant Eatate, 394. 

Actioiia, A4i. 7. Attorney, 86. Pleadiag, 688. 
Bet-ot; 607. 

New Gloacealer Bcbool 

Fund V. Bradbury, Cooatitntioaal Law, 160. 

New Glouceater v. Dan- 

New Portland v. New 

New Portland v. Boa* 

New Vineyard, Pe- 

Newall V. Huaaey, 

Newball v. Dunlap, 
Newhall v. Vargaa, 
NewbaU v. Vargaa, 
Nicbola v. Patten, 

Nickeraon v. Crawford, Deed, 224. 
Nickeraon v. Howard, . Militia, 447, 453. 
Nickeraon v. Wbittier, 
Norcroaa v. Clark, 

Appeal, 34. 

Pabper, 508. StatiMea, 616. 

Pauper, 507. 

County Commiaaionera, 195. Way, 656. 
AmendaMut, 26, 27. Billa, Ac 109. Exeeptiona, 

Agency, 21, 23, 24. Lien, 427. 8bip6ing, 612. 
Sale, 593, 594. 
Sale, 593, 504. 
Attachment, 75, 77, 79. Evidesee, 301, 305. 

Fraud, &c, 363. Ofteer, 484. Sale, 589, 586. 

Witneia, 671. 

Norria v. Blethen, 
Norria v. Bridgbaaii, 
Norria v. Hail, 

Norria v. Spencer, 
Norria v. Windaor, 
North Berwick v. York 

Co. Commiaaioneia, Cartiofari, 146. 
Northern Bank v. Wil 

Execution, 396, 329. Seisin, Ae. 602. 

Pleading, 532. 

Aaanmpait, 63. 

Attachment, 77, 83. 

Actiona, Ac. 12. Aangnment, 53, 54. Coata, 

191. Interest, 399. Trustee Proeeaa, 645. 
Contract, 182, 183. 
Aaaumpait, 70. Debt, 212. 

Way, 660. 

North Yarmouth v. 

Norton v. Eaatman, 
Norton v. Haywood, 
Norton v. Harden, 
Norton v. Preaton, 
Norton v. Savage, 
Norton v. Soule, 
Norton v. Valentine, 

Norton V. Waite, 
Norton v. Young, 
Nott'a caae, 
Nourae v. Snow, 
No well V. Bragdon, 
Nowell V. Nowell, 
Nowell V. Nowell, 
Noyes v. Dyer, 
Noycs V. Sturdivant, 

BUla, Ac. 118, 120. 

Arbitration, 41, 45. 

Guaranty, 374, 375. 

Bills, Ae. 107, 134. Evidence, 263, 288, 316. 

Aaaumpait, 62, 63. Law and Fact, 422. 

Equity, 269. Frauda, Statute of; 367. 

Arbitration, 41. 

Assignment, 52. Mortgage, 463. Sore^, 619. 

Evidence, 306. Officer, 487, 488, 489. Poor 
Debtors, 537. Prabtice, 553. 

Billa, Ae. 126. Witness, 671. 

Actions, Slc. 11. Contract, 171. Sale, 594. 

Constitutional Law, 162. 

Contract, 176. Damages, 208. 

Executors, Ac. 340, 344. LimiUtiona, 432. 

Executors, &c. 339. 

Probate Court, 565. 

Deed, 225. Evidence, 313. Limitations, 431. 

Mortgage, 459, 461. Seizin, Ac. 602, 604. Wit- 
ness, 674. 


Digitized by 


TAMiC 0» OtmM, 



XZIT. 5113, 

XV. 360, 

xziv. 214, 

▼. S81, 

XV. 125, 

Tii. 4C7, 
xvii. 244, 
xxiv. 353, 

iii. 477, 

vi 506, 

▼i. 514, 

vii. 483, 

xviiL 458, 

Ti. 486, 

Tii. 492, 

vii. 497, 

XXV. 567, 

iii. 481, 

iii. 484, 

xvi. 479, 

vU. 502, 

ii. 431, 

mL 487, 

xvi. 263, 

xviii. 109, 

xxi. 23, 

xxiii. 527, 

viL 411, 

xviu. 146, 
vi. 452, 

xxiiL 312, 

X. 315, 

XX. 205, 

viiL 383, 

XV. 147, 

xxii. 47, 

xxL 180, 

OA. — PA. 

AMunptH, 69. 
Limitationt, 438. 
AiMmtioii, 47. LiM, 428, 429. 

I>ower,2l5,247. Eqvlcy, 259, 269. 
ExeoQtora, Ac, 340. P»ob«te Govt, 566. 
Attoni«j, 86. 
Indoner of Writ, 389. 
Conititiitioiial Law, 167. 
ConititQtioiial Law, 157. 
CoiMtitiitioBal Law, 157. 
Conatitatioaal La;«f, 15T. 
Conatitiitioiial Law, 158. 
Conatitiitional Law, 158. 
CoDstitutiooal Law, 158. 
CoAftltatioRal Law, 158, 159. 
Conatitutloiial Law, 159. 
CoBftitvtioiial Law, 159. 
Coattitutional Law, 159. 
CottfltitatioBal Law, 168. Divoroe, 242. 
Lotteries, 441. 
Militia, 445. 
Statotet, 616. 
AmendmeBt, 26. Attachment, 74. 

Oakea v. Cashinc, 
Oakea v. iOtohell, 
Oakea v. Moore, 
CBrien v. Dmilap, 
O'Brien v. Elliot, 
O'Dee V. MeCrate, 
Odlin V. Stetson, 
Oliver v. Blake, 
Opinion of Justioes, 

8. J. Court, 
Opinion, Ac. «* 
Opinion, Ac ^ 
Opinion, Ac. ** 

Opinion, Ac. ^ 
Opinion, Ac. «* 
Opinion, Ac. ** 
Opinion, Ac. •« 
Opinion, Ao. ^ 
Opinion, Ao. ** 
C^inioB, Ac. •* 
OpinioB, Ao. m 
Opinion, Ac. *« 
Opinion, Ac. ** 
0|Nnion, Ac. ** 
Ordwaj v. Wilbnr, 
Oriental Bank V. Freexe,ConstitntioBal Law, 160, 161, 163. 

Ormsbj v. Anson, 
Osbom V. Sargent, 
Osgood V. Bradley, 

Osgood V. Davis, 
Osgood V. Howard, 
Oipood V. Jones, 
Otis V. Monlton, 

Overiock v. Hills, 
Owen V. Boyle, 
Owen V. Boyle, 
Owen V. Daniels, 

Trustee Process, 640, 643. 

Innholders, Ac. 393. Jostiee of the Peace, 412. 

Actions, Ac. 8. Action on Case, 12. Parish, 494, 

Evidence, 293. 
Pn^perty, 567. Trover, 637. 
Assumpsit, 67. Notice and Denand, 480. 
Interest, 399. Usarv, 648. 
Deed, 225. Limitations, 431. Seisin, Ac. 603, 

Collateral Security, 148. 
Evidence, 283, 310. 

Landlord and Tenant, 417, 418. Replevin, 680. 
Reeognizance, 577. 


ix. 115, 

xiv. 478, 

xxvi. 360, 

X. 334, 

XXV. 256, 

XV. 249, 

xvii. 274, 

V. 400, 

xxi. 138, 

vi. 350, 


Page V. 
Paine v, 
Paine v 
Paine v. 







. Hussey, 

V. Little, 

xi. 338, Palmer v. Barker, 

iii. 447, Palmer v. Sawtell, 

xvii. 239^ Palmer v. Spaulding, 

xviii. K9S, Palmer v. York Bank, 

Contract, 168. Limitations, 432, 433. 

Evidence, 305. New Trial, 477. Praetiee, 552. 

Jury, 411. 

Poor Debtors, 536. 

Practice, 554. Trustee Process, 640, 646. 

BiUs, Ac. 117, 122, 123, 128. Sarety,^8t 

Bills, Ac. 132. Witness, 676. 

Parish, 492, 494. 

Agency, 15. Evidence, 5281, 314. 

Evidence, 307. Indorser of Writ, 389. Plead- 
ing, 529. Scire Facias, 600. 

Way, 665. 

Escape, 273. Officer, 486. 

Impounding, 382, 383. 

Amendment, 29. Bank, 92. Damages, 212. Pen- 
alty, 519. Pleading, 526. 

Digitized by 




U. SSI, 

zxiT. 166, 

XX. 353, 

XXTl. 181, 

▼i. 41, 

iii. 17, 

xxii. 404, 

T. 178, 

T. 413, 

xxi. 176, 

Ti. 44S, 

iii. 60, 
ii. 996, 
Tiii. 38, 
T. 217, 
▼i. 74, 

xxiii. 511, 

U. 411, 

xir. 833, 

ii. 60, 

▼iii. 19, 
XX. 145, 
xii. 506, 

xxii. 234, 

▼u. 455, 

▼i. 939, 

X. 178, 

xxii. 919, 

xriii. 106, 

X. 959, 

xxiii. 961, 

xix. 191, 

▼i. 81, 
XXV. 73, 

▼i. 999, 

xu. 961, 
xxii. 100, 

u. 94, 

▼iu. 369, 

X. 956, 

xri. 378, 
xvi. 933, 

xri. 937, 

xvi. 994, 

xvi. 935, 

XX. 317, 

▼. 968, 

i. 148, 

xxTi. 101, 

iii. 97, 

PA. — PB. 

Parch0r*8 cue, C. C. Pleas, 4ke. 196. JdritdiotioB, 406. 

Parker ▼. Currier, Evidence, 309. Review, 585. 

Parker v. Cutler Mill ) Action on Case, 19. Aquatic Rig hti, 37. Corpor- 

Dam Co., > 

Parker v. Flag|(, 
Parker v. Memll, 
Parkman v. Osgood, 
Parks V. Knox, 
Parlin v. Hajnes, 
Parlin v. Maoomber, 
Parsonage Fund v. Ot* 

Parsonage Fond v. Rip- 

ation, 185. Fisheries, ibO. Riparian Prop*r, 5iB5. 
Bailment, 99. Exoeptions, 318, 391. 
Evidence, 313. 

Executors, Slc, 338. Limitations, 439. 
Trustee Process, 643. 
Real Actions, 573. 
Real Actions, 579. 

LimiUtions, 435, 439. 

Bills, &e. 105. 
Arbitration, 45. 
WUl, 667. 

Agency, 91. Sale, 599. 
Parish, 499, 493. 

Parsons v. Hall, 
Parsons v. Parsons, 
Parsons v. Webb, 
Parsonsfield v. Dalton, 
Parsonsfield v. Kenne- 

bunkport, P^Pf 't ^05, 510. 

Parson^eld v. Lord, Certibrari, 146. Way, 656. 
Parsonsfield v. Perkins, Pauper, 510, 515. 

Patrick V. Grant, 
Patridge v. Ballard, 

Patten v. Hunnewell, 
Patten v, Starrett, 
Patterson v. CnoJiing- 

Paul V. Hajford, 
Paul V. Moody, 
Paul V. Noweil, 
Payne v. Parker, 
Payson v. Caswell, 
Peables v. Hannaford, 
Pearoe v. Norton, 
Pearson v. Crosby, 
Pease v. Cornish, 

Pease v. Gibson, 
Pease v. McKusick, 
Pease v. Norton, 
Pease v. Simpson, 
Peavey v. Brown, 
Pejepscot Proprietors 

Peiepeoot Proprietors 

Pejepicot Proprietors v. 

Nichols, Pleading, 531 

Penobscot v. Treat, 
Penobscot Boom v. 

Penobscot Boom v. 

Penobscot Boom v. 

Penobscot Boom v. 

Perkins v. Douglass, 
Perkins v. Dunlap, 
Perkins v. Little, 
Perley v. Jewell, 
Perley v. Little, 

Contract, 189. Deed, 930. Evidence, 994 . 
Assumpsit, 61. Court of Sessions, 196. Law and 

Fact, 421. 
Arbitration, 40, 43, 45. Excejptions, 319. 
Abatement, 6. Amendment, 99. £xceptioBs,391. 

Frauds, Statute of, 367. 
Attachment, 74. Mortgage, 469, 479. 
Deed, 928. 
Recognizance, 577. 
Deed, 219, 229. 

Conspiracy, 155. Malicious Proseootion, 442. 
Fisheries, 350, 351. 
Sale, 591. 
Assignment, 55. 

Bills, Slc. 115. Notice and Demand, 480. Sur- 
plus Revenue, 690. 
Assignment, 51. Deed, 226. License, 496. 
Pleading, 596. Trustee Proceis, 645. 
Poor Debtors, 541, 542, 543, 545. 
Actions, 4kc . 1 1 . Replevin, 581 . 
Limitations, 438. 

Deed, 221 . Pejepscot Claim, 518. 
Evidence, 315. 

Seizin, Ac. 603. Verdict, 650. 
Fisheries, 351. 

Amendment, 28. Assumpsit, 60. Booms, 143. 

Evidence, 287. 
Attorney, 85. Booms, 143. 
185,188. Practice, 548. 

Corporation, 184, 

Booms, 144. Evidence, 287. 
Property, 567. Sale, 592. 
Assumpsit, 65. Frauds, Statute of, 370. 
Dower, 246. 

Forfeiture, 355. Poor Debtors, 538. 
Constitutional Law, 162. Exceptions, 318. Lim- 
itations, 437. Nonsuit, 478. Practice, 556, 557. 

Digitized by 




zix. 3&5, 
X. 185, 

T. 183, 

sz. 363, 

i. 64, 

xxi. 377, 

zi. 66, 
ZYiii. 8S5, 
ZYii. 196, 

zi. 411, 

IT*. 376, 

ziz. 375, 

^zrii. 28, 

ZT. 425, 

pMTin y. Keene, 
Peru T. Tamer, 

Peters t. Fom, 
Peteraon v. Grorer, 
Peteraon ▼. Loring, 
Pettengill v. Kennebec 

Co. CommiBsionera, 
Pet^rgrove ▼. Hovt, 
Philbrick Y. Preble, 

PE.— PO. 

Amendment, 29. Bills, <<. 109. Partnenfaip, 601. 
Contract, 173. Evidence, 315. Overfeenh 491. 

Pauper, 512. 
Seizin, Ac. 603. 
Equity, 261, 270. 
Arbitration, 41. 

Count jT Commiitionera, 195. 
Bond, 141. 
Arbitration, 38, 41, 42. 

Way, 657, 658. 

Philbrook t. Kennebec, County, 195. Court of Sewiona, 198. 

Phillips ▼. Friend, 
Phillips T. Hunnewell, 
Phillips T. Kingfield, 
Phillips T. Megquier, 
Philhps V. Purington, 

zz. 269, Phillips r. Sinclair, 

ziT. 411, 

• z. 127, 

ZY. 48, 

ziii. 412, 

Yi. 160, 

zzu. 413, 

ZYi. 255, 

Y. 324, 

ZZY. 440, 

zzY. 33, 

ZYii. 431, 

iz. 54, 

ZZY. 440, 

ZZY. 440, 

zzYi. 277, 

zziii. 246, 

zzii. 113, 

zzYi. 436, 

zzi. 260, 

Appeal, 34. 

Frauds, Statute of, 368. Sale, 587. 

Exceptions, 321. Pauper, 511. Practice, 553,554. 

Trustee Process, 645. 

Evidence, 281,313. Partnership, 499, 502, 503. 

Practice, 550. 
Limitations, 435. Mortgage, 466. Real Actions, 

Execution, 328, 329, 330. 
Indorser of Writ, 388. Pleading, 530. 
Mortgage, 470. Replevin, 581 . 
Bills, &c. 125. LimiUtions, 434. 
Shipping, 611. 

Devise, <Skc. 240. Will, 667, 668, 669. 
Justice of the Peace and Quorum, 413. 
Appeal, 34. 

Phillips Y. Williams, 

Philpot v. McArthur,* 

Pickard v. Low, 

Pickard v. Valentine, 

Pickering y. Holt, 

Pickering v. Langdon, 

Pierce's case, 

Pierce, ex parte, 

Pierce y. Central Bank, Mesne Profits, 444, 445. 

Pierce v. Conant, Usury, 648, 649. 

Pierce v. Delesdemier, Fees, 347. Officer, 484 

Real Actions, 576. 

Pierce v. Kimball, 
Pierce y. Leonard, 
Pierce v. Strickland, 
Pierce v. Strickland, 

Pierce v. Taylor, 
Pierce v. Whitney, 
Pierre y. Femald, 
Pike V. Bacon, 

Constitutional Law, 163. 
Mesne Profits, 444, 445. 
Mesne Profits, 444, 445. 
Amendment, 32. 
327, 328, 329. 

Statutes, 616. 
Real Actions, 576. 
Real Actions, 576. 
Evidence, 285. Execution, 
Ezecuton, Ac. 342, 345, 346. 

ii. 213, Pike v. Dyke, 

ZY. 390, 

z. 168, 

zvii. 107, 

zU. 435, 
ZZY. 427, 

Yi. 457, 
zziii. 251, 

ZYiii. 361, 
zii. 349, 
ZY. 460, 

Yi. 421, 

zziii. 297, 

Yi. 285, 

ZZJY. 14, 

Y. 334, 
ziz. 121, 
zv. 363, 
ziv. 141, 

Pike v. Warren, 
Pilsbury v. Femald, 
Pillsbury v. Pillsbory, 
Fillsbury v. Small, 
Pillsbury v. Smyth, 
Pingree y. Warren, 
Piper Y. Goodwin, 

Pitts Y. Mower, 
Pitts Y. Weston, 
Pittston v. Clark, 
Pittston Y. Wiscasset, 
Plummer y. Dennett, 
Plummer v. Jarvis, 
Plummer v. Noble, 
Plummer y. Walker, 
Poland v. Pierce, 
Poland Y. Stront, 
Poland Y. Wilton, 
Polleys v. Ocean In- 
surance Co. 

Judgment, 405, 406. 
Deed, 218. 

Bills, Slc, 123, 128. New Trial, 476. 
Easement, 251. Prescription, 562. 
Assignment, 54. Deed^ 216. Evidence, 306. 

Partnership, 501. 
Deed, 214, 221. Evidence, 307. Proprietors of 

Common Lands, 568. 
Ezceptions, 319. Limitations, 437. 
Assumpsit, 72. Evidence, 311. 
Equity, 265. Witness, 674. 
Attachment, 77. Officer, 486. Witness, 675. 
Execution, 324, 327, 333. Scire Facias, 601. ^ 
Witness, 672. 
Abatement, 4. Error, 272. Executors, Ac. 345. 

Pleading, 532. Practice, 560. 
Agency, 15, 24. Trustee Process, 640. 
Militia, 451, 453. 
Agency, 22. Town, 632. 
Emancipation, 251. Pauper, 505, 506. 
Malicious Prosecution, 442. Trespass, 636. 
Land Agent, 414. 
Malicious Prosecution, 442. 
Amendment, 30. Real Actions, 573, 576. 
Pauper, 515. 
Town, 633. 
Pauper, 514. 
Corporation, 188. Deposition, 234. Evidence, 

316, 317. Insurance, 395, 397. New Trial, 

477. Practice, 551. 

Digitized by 




X. 69, 

xxh. 85, 
xi. 468, 

xxli. 105, 

xxTi. 448, 

iv. 20, 

XX. 39], 

Ti. 430, 

iii. 188, 

xi. 177, 

W. 41, 

xi. 170, 

xiii. 25, 

i. 297, 

ii. 22, 

xix. 363, 

xxi. 258, 

i. 306, 

xvii. 292, 

xvi. 427, 

xix. 99, 

xi. 196, 

xviii. 117, 

xviii. 55, 
ii. 239, 
iii. 34, 
xi. 3J, 
iv. 154, 
vii. 302, 

X. 53, 
xi. 157, 

xii. 55, 
xiii. 36, 
xvi. 423, 
xxii. 300, 

PoIIeys V. Smith, 
Pool V. Hathaway, 
Pool V. Tuttle, 
Pope V. Cutler, 
Porter v. Bullard, 
Porter v. Cole, 
Porter v. Foster, 
Porter v. Griswold, 

Porter v. Hammond, 
Porter v. Haskell, 
Porter v. Hill, 
Porter v. Hooper, 

Porter r. Hooper, 
Porter v. King, 
Porter v. Noyea, 
Porter v. Read, 
Porter v. Sherburne, 
Porter v. Whitney, 
Porter v. Witham, 
Portland v. New Glou 

ceater. Pauper, 507. 

Portland Bank v. Fox, BilU, &c. 128. 
Portland Bank v. Hyde, Assignment, 56. 
Portland Man. Co. v. 

Potter V. Cummings. 
Potter V. Mayo 


Costs, 194. 

Mortgage, 463, 464. 

Aasumpsit, 70. 

Execuuon, 3:30, 331. 

Assignment, 51. Trustee Process, 644. 

Abatement, 3. Deed, 215, 216. 

Sale, 590. Trover. 638. 

Condition, 151. Grants, &c.~ 372. Proprietors of 

Common Lands, 568. 
Seizin, &c. 603. 

Amendment. 31. Execution, 324. 
Limitations, 437. 
Actions, &c. 8. Assumpsit, 59, 67. Landlord 

and Tenant, 419. Mills, 455. 
Joint Tenants, &,c 402. Mills, 456. 
Execution, 333. Mortgage, 460. 
Contract, 174. Dower, 244. 
Deed, 220. Mortgage, 465, 469. 
Militia, 449, 452, 453. 
Tax, 623. 
Equity, 269, 270. 

Mortgage, 461. 
Partnership, 499. 

Probate Bonds, 565. 
Writ, 681. 

Potter V. Mayo, 
Potter V. Smith, 
Potter V. Sturdivant, 
Potter V. Titcomb, 

Potter V. Titcomb, 
Potter V. Titcomb, 

Potter V. Titcomb, 
Potter V. Titcomb, 
Potter V. Titcomb, 
Potter V. Titcomb, 

ii. 267, 

V. 330, 

vi. 14, 

viii. 271, 

*xvii. 145, 

xxi. 402, 

xvii. 169> 

iv. 431, 

xvi. 30, 

xxiii. 305, 

xxiii. 345, 

xiii. 423, 

xix. 115, 

xxvi. 458, 

XXV. 249, 

xi. 174, 
Ti. 379, 
iY. 28a, 

Potter V. Webb, 
Jotter V. Webb, 
Potter V. Webb, 
Pownal, petitioners, 
Pray v. Garcelon, 
Prav V. Stinson, 
Preble v. Reed, 

Preble v. Yonng, 
Prentiss v. Russ, 
Prescott V. Brown, 

Prescott V. Ellingwood, Mortgage, 462, 468. 

Arbitration, 42. 

Executors, &c. 344. 

Probate Bonds, 564. 

Attorney, 87. 

Militia, 446. 

Constitutional Law, 159. 

Bond, 141. Executors, dbc. 345. Pleading, 531. 

Presumption, 563. Probate Bonds, 564. 
Executors, &c. 337, 343. Pleading, 528, 529. 
Pleading, 533. Practice, 557, 560. Presumption, 

Executors, &c. 345. Probate Bonds, 565. 
Pleading, 530. Scire Facias, 600. 
Pleading, 529, 533. 
Alien, ^. Contract, 172. Domicil, 243. Dower, 

246. Scire Facias, 600. Widow, 666. Will, 

Pleading, lB27. Probate Court, 565. 
Pleading, 528. 

Condition, 154. Evidence, 286. 
Wajr, 660. 

Limitations, 438. Nonsuit, 478. 
Shipping, 610, 611. 
Arbitration, 46. Easement, 251. 

320. MUls, 456. 
Tax, 624. 

Evidence, 293, 304. Fraud, d&c. 358. Sale, 595. 
Husband and Wife, 379. 


Prescott V. Mudgett, 
Pride v. Lunt, 
Pudor V. Boston and 

Maine R. R. Co. 
Pullen V. Hutchinson, 

Fence, 349. 

Deed, 225. Evidence, 294. Execution, 326. 

Witness, 670. 

Amendment, 30. 
&c. 358, 361. 
Purrington V. Dunning, Executors, ft c. 337, 341. 
Purinton v. Humphreys, Verdict, 651. 
Parinton v. Sedgiey, Deed, 221. 

Evidence, 282, 302. Fraud; 

Digitized by 




xi. 332, 

rvi. 470, 

XX. 218, 

▼. 53, 

xiv. 309, 

XTU. 226, 

▼. 277, 

iv. 495, 

Quimbj T. AdamB, 
Qnimbjr v. Buzzell, 
Quimby v. Carter, 
Quimby ▼. Whitney, 
Quinby y. Higgins, 
Quinby t. Sprague, 
Ciuincy v. Tiltoo, 
Quint V. Little, 


Q. — RI. 

Constable, 156. 

Evidence, 305. LimitatiooB, 435. 

Damages, 212. Fraud, Slc. 357. Practice, 560. 

Contract, 176. 

Descent, Slc. 236. 

Bond, 140. 

Sale, 588. 

Mortgage, 465, 466. 

Xix. 274, Rackleff v. Norton, 

XTii. 281, Rackley y. Sprague, 

xix. 344, Rackley y. Sprague, 

xxi. 288, Ramsdeil v. Ramsdell, 

xxiii. 326, Rand v. Sargent, 

xiy. 51, Randell v. Mallett, 

iy. 326, Randall y. Randall, 

xxi. 130, Rangely y. Spring, 

xviii. 216, Rawson y. Brown, 

ix. 119, Rawson v. Porter, 

xi. 190, Raymond y. Harrison, 

xyiii. 3H5, Raymond y. Wyman, 

xyiii. 137, Rea y. Dorrance, 

ii. 82, Read y. Cummingt, 

yil 186, Read y. Cutts, 

xxiii. 318, Read y. Frankfort Bank, 

y. 379, Redington y. Farrar, 

XX. 246, Reed y. Belfast, 

xiy. 259, Reed y. Cross, 

y. 96, Reed y. Jewett, 

xxiy. 32S, Reed y. Johnson, 

xxy. 242, Reed y. Reed, 

iy. 400, Reed y. Woodman, 

xyii. 43, Reed y. Woodman, 

a. 128, Reid y. Blaney, 

xu. 340, Remick y. O'Kyle, 

XIX. 22, Reynolds y. Plummer, 

xiy. 104, Reynolds y. Wilkins, 

xi. 323, Rice y. West, 

xxi. 558, Rice v. Wilkins, 

xxu. 28, Rich y. Reed, 

xxiii. 343, Rich y. Shaw, 

xyii. 296, Richards y. Allen, 

xi. 70, Richards y. Folsom, 

xix. 62, Richardson y. Buchel- > 

yi. 355, Richardson y. Brown, 

xy. 421, Richardson V. Clark, 

xxy. 450, Richardson y. Cooper, 

yi. 35, Richardson y. Field, 

yi. 303, Richardson y. Field, 

yi. 57, Richardson y. i^'reeman, 

xxi. 47, Richardson y. Merrill, 


Dee<i, 218. Eyidence, 299. Mortgage, 463, 469- 

Deed, 231. Mills, 456. 

Costs, 190. Executors, Ac. 344. 

Deyise, dws. 238, 239. Will, 668. 

Attachment, 81. Officer, 488. 

Damages, 209. Mortgage, 461, 467. Partition, 

Diyorce, 242. 

Estoppel, 279. Husband and Wift, 379. 

Constitutional Law, 163. Court Martial, 197. 

Assumpsit, 62. Attorney, 86. 

Pauper, 509, 51]. 

Guardian, 376. Probate Court, 566. 

Bills, &c. 113, 125. 

Bills, Ac, 105. 

Bills, Ac, 121. Guaranty, 373. 

Bank, 94. Constitutional Law, 160. Corpora- 
tion, 184. 

Amendment, 27. Assumpsit, 71. 

Actions, &c. 9. Parent and Child, 492. Way, 

Equity, 256. 

Eyidence, 304. Mortgage, 469. Sale, 595, 506. 

Equity, 254, 258. 

Costs, 191. Probate Court, 566. 

Fraud, Ac. 359, 360. 

Tender, 627. 

Debt, 212. Indorser of Writ, 388. Scire Facias, 

Assumpsit, 71. Bills, &c. 113, 130. 

Costs, 190. 

Eyidei^e, 304. Fraud, A^. 363. 

Bills, &c. 124. 

Attachment, 82. Attorney, 85, 86. Oficer, 489. 
Witness, 676. 

Trustee Process, 640, 643. 

Bank, 94. Corporation, 187. 

Assumpsit, 63. Limitations, 434. Tender, 697. 

Agency, 16, 18. Entry, 252. 

Abatement, 4. Militia, 446, 449, 450, 451, 454. 
Writ, 680. 

Parish, 492, 493. 

Sale, 591. 

Contract, 173. Eyidence, 295. 

Usury, 649. 

Usury, 649. 

Shakers, 609. 

Deyise, &c. 239. Partition, 495. 

Digitized by 




lir. 916, Riebardaoii v. York, 

XT. 434, Richmond t. Lisbon, 

T. 396, Richmond t. VaMalbo- 


i. 117, Ricker v. Kellej, 

xziii. 344, Rider v. Thompfon, 

xvi. 21, Ridley v. Perry, 

Yi. 261, Ridlon v. Emery, 

XY. 406, Riggs T. Sally, 

i. 6d, Riggt ▼. Thatcher, 

V. 45, Ring v. Burton, 

▼. 24, Ripley ▼. Berr^r, 

xviii. 382, Ripley v. Dolbier, 

iii. 346, Robbing r. Bacon, 

ix. 9, Roberts ▼. Adams, 

xxiii. 165, Roberts t. Bourne, 

zz. 275, Roberts ▼. Marston, 

xxi. 114, Robie ▼. Smith, 

XX. 109, Robinson v. Blen, 

xi. 480, Robinson v. Cusbing, 

ZXT. 401, Robinson v. Fiske, 

xvii. 206, Robinson v. Folger, 

XTii. 131, Robinson v. Georges 
Ins. Co. 

XX. 299, Robinson v. Gilmau, 

XY. 296, Robinson y. Heard, 

X. 240, Robinson y. Robinson, 

xziii*. 388, Robinson y. Sampson, 

XX Yi. 11, Robinson y. Sampson, 

xzYi. 378, Robinson y. Swett, 

iii. 316, Robison y. Swett, 

Yiii. 274, Rodick y. Hinkley, 

ii. 301, Rogers, ez parte, 

ii. 303, Rogers, ez parte, 

xi. 303, Rogers, appellant, &c. 

lY. 274, Rogers y. Crombie, 

iii. 362, Rogers y. Haines, 

lY. 93, Rogers y. Joyce, 

XYiii. 257, Rogers y. Reed, 

XYi. 92, Rogers y. Saunders, 

Yi. 193, Rogers y. White, 

xz. 154, Rolfe y. Cooper, 

XX. 319, Rollins y. Bartlett, 

xxi. 565, Rollins y. Bartlett, 

xxiY. 123, Rollins y. Dow, 

XYi. 475, Rollins y. Dyer, 

xxY. 192, Rollins y. Uooers, 

XYi. 336, Rollins y. Mudgett, 

XXY. 144, Rollins y. Taber, 

xxiii. 335, Roop y. Johnson, 

Y. 204, Ross Y. Gould, 

lY. 454, Rounds y. Baxter, 

XYi. 128, Rowe y. Godfrey, 

iii. 63, Rowe y. Hamilton, 

xix. 146, Rowe y. Johnson, 

xiY. 393, Rowe y. Truitt, 

xxi. 545, Rowe y. Whittier, 

xxiii. 182, Rowell y. Freese, 

iY. 270, Rowell y. Montville, 

XT. 306, Ruby Y. Abyssinian 

RI. — RU. 

Deed, 230. Property, 567. 
Panper, 509. 

Pauper, 510. 

Frauds, Statute of, 369. License, 496. TrespMi» 

Poor Debtors, 537, 544. 
Libel %nd Slander, 426. 
Costs, 193. Jurisdiction, 408. 
Devise, Ac. 238. Tenant in Tail, 695, 
Actions, &c. 7. Escape, 273. Officer, 489. 
Costs, 189. Executors, Ac. 338, 340. 
Deed, 221. 

Mortgage, 471. Sale, 592. TroYcr, 637. 
Assignment, 50 . Trustee Process, 644. 
Witness, 676. 

Attachment, 76. Deed, 218. * 

Condition, 153. Contract, 180. 
Landlord and Tenant, 419. 
Bills, d^c. 118, 133. EYidence,299. 
Partnership, 502. Pleading, 523. 
Contract, 181, 183. 
Militia, 446, 448, 450, 452, 453, 454. 

Insurance, 396. Salvage, 596. 

Evidence, 310. 

Bond, l42. Condition, 152. Damages, 210. 

Evidence, 287, 317. Witness, 679. 
Abatement, 5. Agency, 23. 
Equity, 258, 262. Mortgage, 464. 
Equity, 259. 
Bastardy, 97. 
Entry, 252. Evidence, 286. Seizin, dbc. 603, 

Shipping, 613. 

Evidence, 310. Statutes, 616. 
Statutes, 616. 
Will, 668. 
Damages, 206. 
Estoppel, 277. 
Lanalord and Tenant, 416. 
Bills,&c. 103, 133. 
Equity, 266, 267. Time, 628. 
Agency, 18. 
Schools, &c. 598. 
Bills, &c. 110. Contract, 171 . 
Evidence, 288. 
Poor Debtors, 545. 
Evidence, 297. 
Evidence, 305. Execution, 330,331. Fraud, Sl9. 

361. Trespass, 634. 
Militia, 446, 447, 453. 

Assignment, 58. Surety, 619. Witness, 675. 
Ezecution, 329, 331. 

Deed, 220. Evidence, 300. Seizin, Ac, 603. 
Assumpsit, 61. Contract, 181. 
Deposition, 234. Practice, 551. 
Dower, 246. • 

Dower, 249. 
Writ, 681. 

Frauds, Statute of, 366. 
Equity, 260. 
Way, 662, 666. 
Corporation, 185, 188. Evidence, 316. Mort- 

gage, 466. 

Practice, 549. 

Malicious Prosecution, 442. 

Digitized by 


TtMLt or CA^n. 























Randlet r. Jordan, 
Randlet t. Small, 
ROM V. Gilman, 
Rum t. Wilson, 
Roaaell v. Baboook, 
Roaaell ▼. Doyle, 
Roisell ▼. Elden, 
Ruaaell r. Hook, 
Russell T. Richards, 
Ruseell v. Richards, 

Ryan t. Walson, 
Rjder ▼. Robinson, 

RU. — SA, 

Trastoe Process, 619, 640, 641, 649. 

firidence, 990. Pajsant, 618. Witness, 679. 

Amendment, 39. Ezecation, 330. 

Equity, 954, 957. 

Contract, 169. Frauds, Statute of; 966. 

Bills, &e.n35. Evidence, 313, 316. 

Devise, 4kc. 238. 

Execution, 398. 

Property, 667. Trover, 637. 

Execution , 334 . Property, 667. 

Trover, 637. 
Bail, 89. Pleading, 597. 
Abatement, 9. Costo, 190. 

Sale, 506. 




































▼. 237, Saoo v. Osgood, 
vii. 256, Saco Manuf. Co. v. 
Safford v. Annis, 
St. George v. Deer Isle, 
Sanborn v. Uoyt, 
Sanborn v. Southard, 
Sanford School District 

V. Brooks. 
Sanfbrd v. Emery, 
Sanford v. Uollis, 
Sanfbrd v. Lebanon, 
Sanger v. Kennebec Co. 

Sergeant v. Andrews, 
Sargent v. Ashe, 
Sargent v. Carr, 
Sargent v. Simpson, 
Savage v. Balch, 
Savage v. Kin^, 
Savage v. Whitaker, 
Savage Mannf. Co. v. ) 
Armstrong, ) 

xix. 147, Savage Manuf. Co. v. 

xxiii. 360, Savings Institution v 
V. 438, Sawtell v. Davis, 
XX. 169, Sawtell v. Pike, 
xxiii. 196, Sawtelle v. Rollins, 
iii. 29, Sawyer v. Baker, 
xii. 391, Sawyer v. Hammatt, 
XV. 40, Sawyer v. Hammatt, 
xxiv, 542,. Sawyer v. Hanson, 
xxii. 268, Sawyer v. Hopkins, , 

XXV. 464, Sawyer v. Huff, 
xix. 49, Sawyer v. Mason, 

XIX. 167, Sawyer v. Pennell, 

ix. 47, Sawyer v. Shaw, 

XXV. 337, Sawyer v. Vanghan, 

xxvi. 122, Sawyer v. Winnegance 
MiU Co. 

vi. 263, Saywaid v. Drew, 

i. 291, Sayward v. Emery, 

Bond, 138. 

Bills, Slc, 105. 
Covenant, 201. 
Pauper, 507. 
Deed, 233. 

Contract, 181. 
Reservation, 583. 

Evidepce, 999. 


Actions, &c. 10. School, Sec. 599. 
Nonsuit, 478. Pauper, 515. 
Pauper, 519. 
Pauper, 513. 

Mandamus, 443. Way, 657. 
Assumpsit, 71. 

Evidence, 388. Landlord and Tenant, 490. 
Attachment, 74. 
Grants, Ac 372. 

Evidence, 315. Practice, 551. Witness, 679. 
Bills, dbc. 104, 119. Husband and Wife, 380. 
Bills, Slc, 106. Contract, 189. 
AlMUeaient, 5. Corporation, 188. Law and Fact, 
429. Practice, 557. 

Contract, 176. 

Constitutional Law, 164. Equity, 270. Savings 

Institution, 596, 597. 
MUiUa, 448, 460, 453. 
Bond, 140. 

Bankruptcy, 95. Replevin, 581. 
Amendment, 30. 
Contract, 178. Evidence, 299. 
Contract, 179. 
Forcible Entry, 354. 
Forgery, 356. Jury, 410. Libel and Slander, 

425. Practioe, 560, 558. 
Practice, 555. Replevin, 589. 
Attachment, 74, 60, 82, 83. Damages, 908. 

Mortgage, 471. Officer, 490. 
Mortgage, 471. 
Sale, 5U0. 
BUIs, Ac. 108. Evidence, 303. 

Arbitration, 39. 
Trustee Process, 649. 
Appeal, 34. Exceptions, 318. 


Digitized by 



SA. — SM. 

vii. 210, 
i. 262, 

iv. 429, 
▼i. 364, 

X. 274, 

xvi. 192, 

xvi. 326, 

ii. 199, 

T. 336, 

▼i. 425, 

zzW. 343, 

XXY. 153, 

xxiv. 278, 

iii. 450, 

▼i. 60, 

iv. 306, 

Sayward v. Bayward, Devise, 4kc. 239. 
Scamman v. Saco Meet- 
ing house, 
Scamman v. Sawyer, 
Schillinger v. McCann, 

Schwartz v. Kuhn, 
Scott V. Blood, 
Scott V. Hale, 
Scott V. McLeilaa, 
Scott V. Whipple, 
Scott V. Whipple, 
Scott V. Williamson, 
Scudder v. Young, 
Sears v. Wright, 
Searsmont v. Farwell, 
Seaver v. Bradley, 
Seaver v. Dingley, 

vi. 118, 8eavey*s case, 
i. 163, Seaward v. Lord, 
X. 268, Sedgley v. Bowdoin- 
xvii. 123, Seidensparger v. Spear, 

xxii. 558, Seiders v. Creamer, 

iii. 178, Selden v. Beale, 

xxiv. 120, Severance v. Whittier, 

xiii. 141, Sevey v. Chick, 

XV. 414, Sewall v. Cargill, 

V. 458, Sewall v. Ridlon, 

viii. 194, Sewall v. Sewall, 

xiv. 168, Sewall v. Wilkins, 

i. 271, Shapleigh v. Pilsbury, 

xxiii. 174, Shaw v. Gray, 

XX. 266, Sha^ v. Laugh ton, 

xiv. 432, Shaw v. Rubs, 

X. 113, Shaw V.Wise, 

xii. 318, Shed v. Miller, 

xxii. 497, Shepley v. Waterhouse, 

XX. 70, Sherburne v. Jones, 

vi. 210, Sherburne v. Sherburne, 

V. 295, Sherwood v. Marwick, 

xxvi. 228, Shimmin v. Inman, 

ix. 83, Shirley v. Todd, 

XV. 185, Sibley v. Brown, 

xxiii. 70, Sibley v. Robinson^ " 

xii. 460, Sibley v. Spring,' ' 

V. 123, Sidney v. Winthrop, 

viii.- 138, Simpson v. Seavy, • " " 

xxiv. 437, Simpson v. Wifson^ 

X. 43, Skillings v. Boyd, 

xxii.' 164, Skofield v. Haley, 

viii. 165, Small v. Connor, 

xix. 255, Small v. Hutchins, 

iv. 407, Small v. Q,uinry, 

iv. 220, Small v. Small, 

i. 133, Small v. Swain, 

Actions, &C. 10. 

Deed, 221. 

Assumpsit, 65. Estoppel, 275. Evidence, 292, 
296. Practice, 552, 560. Witness, 671. ' 

Seizin, Sec. 606. 

Evidence, 290. Partnership, 503. 

Evidence, 2^7. 

Agency, 1ft. Witness, 671. 

Contract, 166. Deed, 215. Indenture, 383. 

Pleading, 528. 

Assumpsit, 67. Evidence, ^tOO. 

Equity, 258. 

Bills, ^c. 104, 135. Evidence, 292. 

Schools, 6lc. 597. 

Guaranty, 374. Witness, 673. 

Fraud, ^Icc. 356. Notice and Demand, 479. Re- 
plevin, 581. 

Evidence, 284, 290. Nuisance, 480. 

Limitations, 437. 

Contract, 177. 

Deed, 225. Frauds, Statute of, 368. Mills, 455, 

Appeal, 34. 
Agency, 25. 
Bills, Slc. 107. 
Estoppel, 275. 

Grants, &c. 372. Parish, 493. 
Evidence,306. Jurisdiction, 408. Partition, 495, 

496. Record, 578. 
Evidence, 312, 313. 

Bond, 138. Condition, 152. Contract, 175. 
Parish, 493. Real Actions, 575. 
Equity, 254. Mortgage, 469. 
Attachment, 83. 
Dower, 247. 

Bond, 138. Seizin, 602. 
Bills, &c. 125. 
Limitations, 437. 
Attachment, 73. Landlord and Tenant, 414, 415, 

416, 418. 
Divorce, 242. 
Agency, 20. Fraud, Ac. 357. Law and Fact, 

420,422. Partnership, 500. 
Tax, 621, 622, 624. 
Bills, &c. 126, 130. Evidence, 315. 
Bailment, 92. Officer, 488. 
Bills, &c. 128, 134. 
Covenant, 201. 
Pauper, 505, 606. 
AcUon on Case, 13. Costs, 193. Joint Tenants, 

&c. 400. Mills, 455. Nuisance, 480. 
Error, 272, 273. Exceptions, 322. 
Costs, 191. Writ, 681. 
Bills, Ac. 114, 124. Guaranty, 374. 
Arbitration, 43. 
Attachment, 77, 81. Bailment, 92. Replevin, 

580, 581. 

Evidence, 291. 

Contract, 176. 

Will, 668. 

Abatement, 2. 

Peace, 411. 

Jurisdiction, 408. 
Replevin, 582. 

Justice of the 

Digitized by 


TABLB er CA8E8. 

XX. 83, 

X. 458, 

XTiii. 122, 

xviii. 157, 
xvi. 308, 

vii. 41, 
xiii. 273, 
xiv. 457, 

ii. 173, 
viii. 343, 

xi. 295, 

ix. 128, 
xiv. 449, 

X. 71, 

xui. 284, 

xU. 322, 

xxri. 411. 

Small wood v. Norton, 
Smith V. Barker, 
Smith Y. Berry, 

Smith y. Coffin, 
Smith T. Dutton, - 

Smith ▼. Enatia, 
Smith T. Follansbee, 
Smith ▼. Frye, 

Smith T. 
Smith ▼. 
Smith ▼. 
Smith y. 
Smith y. 
Smith y. 
Smith y. 
Smith y. 
Smith y. 










SM.— SP. 

Attorney, 87. Bond, 141, 149. DamaM, 210. 
Partnership, 499. Trastee Proceaa, 642. 
Actions, &c. 9. Assignment, 53. Bills, Ac, 111 , 

136. Damages, 208. 
Evidence, 318. Witness, 678. 
Heirs, 378. Probate Acconnta, 564, Probate 

Court, 566. 
Dower, 244, 245, 246. 
Dower, 244. Waste, 654. 
Bills, &c. 109, 131. Exceptions, 319. Practice, 


Trespass, 633. 
Assumpsit, 72. Pleading, 599. 

Contract, 177. 
Collateral Security, 148. 

xxiv. 147, Smith y. Lyford, 

vi. 274, Smith v. Moore, 

xxiv. 185, Smith v. People's Bank, 

xvii. 277, Smith v. Prescott, 

xviii. 87, Smith v. Putney, 

xvi. 200, Smith v. Richards, 

y. 504, Smith v. Say ward, 

ii. 408, Smith y. Smith, 

xxiv. 555, Smith v. Smith, 

viii. 119, Smith v. Thorndike, 

X. 350, Smith v. Tilton, 

xxiv. 539, Smith v. Trickey, 

xvii. 353, Smith v. Wadleigh, 

xviii. 95, Smith v. Wadleigh, 

xvi. 13, Smith v. Wyman, 

xvi. 14, Smith v. Wyman, 

xix. 387, Smitbfield v. Belgrade, 

xiv. 235, Snow v. Goodrich, 

iii. 94, Snow v. Hall, 

xix. 269, Snow v. Thomaston ) 
Bank, ) 

xiv. 133, Sopcr v. Stevens, 

y. 407, Soule's case, 

xiv. 436, Soule v. White, 

XX vi. 214, Southard v. Parker, 

xix. 458, Southard v. Smyth, 

xxi. 494, Southard v. Wilson, 

i. 369, Southgate v. Bumham, 

xix. 79, Sparrow v.-ChesIey, 

xiv. 97, Spaulding v. Harvey, 

X. 363, Spaulding v. Smith, 

xiv. 263, Spear v. Sturdivant, 

xxi. 519, Spencer v. Eustis, 

XX. 75, Spencer v. Garland, 

xvii. 413, Spencer v. Perry, 

i. 395, Spratt v. Webb, 

xxii. 505, Spring v. Chase, 

xxi. 126, Spring v. Haines, 

xxii. 408, Spring v. Htght, 

xii. 127, Sppn|( y. Parkman, 

vii. 973, Spring v. Russell, 

Mortgage, 460. 

Arbitration, 45. 

Arbitration, 40. 

Assumpsit, 62. 

BiUs, ^c. 106. 

Fraud, &c. 359. 

Dower, 249. Estoppel, 276. 

Bond, 138. 

Amendment, 33. Attachment, 77. Error, 978. 

Execution, 327, 328, 329. Judgment, 404, 405. 

Attorney, 86. 

Error, 272. Pleading, 596. 
Execution, 327. Mortgage, 459, 463. 
Bills, 4&C. 132. Evidence, 301 . 
Damages, 205. Mortgage, 470. Practice, 558. 
Evidence, 293, 312. New Trial, 475. 
Assumpsit, 59. Frauds, Statute of, 365. 
Deposition, 234. 

Attachment, 74, 82. Mortgage, 469, 472. 
Arbitration, 45. 
Evidence, 295. Sale, 596. 
Bills, &c. 120. 

Deposition, 235. Practice, 556. 
Assumpsit, 60. 
Libel and Slander, 424. 
Libel and Slander, 425. 
Pauper, 508. 
Bills, &c. 122, 135. 
Costs, 192. 
Collateral Security, 148. 

ness, 674. 
Assumpsit, 62. 
Husband and Wife, 379. 
Damages, 206. 
Contract, 181. 
Arbitration, 44. Interest, 399. 


Witness, 672, 676. 
Partition, 495. Practice, 560. 
Fraud, Slc 363. Sale, 593. Trusts, 646. 
Exceptions, 319. 

Partnership, 502. Witness, 672. 
Amendment, 33. Execution, 332. 
Shipping, 610. 

Judgment, 407. Poor Debtors, 540, 544. 
Jurisdiction, 409. Justice of the Peace, 411, 413. 
Absent Defendants, 6. 
Damages, 209. 
Mortgage, 466, 468. 
Advancement, 13. Equity, 263. Husband and 

Wife, 381. 
Assumpsit, 59. Deed, 213. Devise, 4bc. 237. 
Constitutional Law, 161. Fryeburg Canal, 370. 

Pleading, 529. Way, 655. 

Evidence, 308. Wit- 

Witness, 677. 

Trustee Process, 

Digitized by 



▼ii. 443| Springer v. Bowdoin- 

ziz. 359, 

xi. 204, 

zrii. 351, 

xzri. 185, 

xix. 335, 

zviii. 93, 

X. 97, 

ZTui. 229, 

xiii. 51, 

▼. 369, 
zzvi. 191, 

ziv. 290, 
▼iii. 181, 
Tii. 201, 

W. 532, 
zxv. 201, 

zz. 457, 

8priiifer ▼. Hatchinaon, 
Springer t. Shirley, 
Springer v. Whipple, 
Sproat ▼. Donnetl, 
Stacj Y. FoM, 
Standieh v. Gnj, 
Standish v. Windham, 
Staniford ▼. Fallerton, 
Stanley ▼. BnuMwick 

Hotel Co., 
Stanley ▼. Perley, 
Stanley v. Stanley, 

Stanwood ▼. Dunning, 
Staples T. Bradbury, 
Staples Y. Emery, 
Staples Y. Staples, 
Stark Y. SmileY, 
Starrett y. Barber, 

SP. — ST. 

New Trial, 476. Way, 663. 

Bills, &o. 125. Guaranty, 374. 

Partnership, 500. 

Attcuney, 85. Witness, 676. 

Bailment, 92. Shipping, 611, 614. 

Gaming, 370, 371. Wager, 653. 

Error, 271. Pauper, 509, 516. 

Pauper, 510, 512. 

Execution, S96. Joint Tenants, 4^. 
























Stue Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
State Y. 
SUte Y. 
State Y. 













ZY. 104, 

z. 438, 

ziY. 421, 

Yii. 57, 

ZZY. 306, 

Yi. 281, 

z. 473, 

ZY. 473, 
ZZY. 171, 
zziii. 43, 

ZYi. 349, 

yI. 148, 

zziii. 403, 

ZY. 402, 
zi. 473, 

State Y. Burlingham, 
State Y. Burr, 
State Y. Call, 
State Y. Cayford, 
State Y. Churchill, 
Sute Y. Coffin, 
State Y. Corson, 

State Y. Cottle, 
State Y. Crowell, 
State Y. Currier, 
State Y. Cutler, 
State Y. Damon, 
State Y. DaYis, 

State Y. Dearborn, 
State Y. Delesdemier, 

State Y. 
State Y. 
Sute Y. 
Sute Y. 
State Y. 
Sute Y. 
Sute Y. 
SUte Y. 
State Y. 
StaU Y. 
State Y. 
SUte Y. 













Voting, 652. Witness, 675. 

Contract, 165. EYidence, 293. 

Attachment, 76. Deed, 217. Real Actions, 575. 

Constitutional Law, 161. Corporation, 188, 189. 

Officer, 484. 
Dower, 245. 

Agency, 16. Ezecutors, Ac. 337. 
Attachment, 73. Landlord and Tenant, 416. 
Attorney, 86. Trustee Process, 639. 
Condition, 153. Will, 669. 
Bills, Ac. 123. Collateral Security, 148, 140. 
m Payment, 517. 
Logs, 440. 
Forpery, 355. 
Indictment, 387. 
Indictment, 384. 
Public Lou, 570. 
Justice of the Peace, 412. Recognisance, 576. 
Way, 659, 665. 
Indictment, 384. 

Evidence, 289. Ezceptlmia, 323. Witness, 679. 
Pleading, 522. 
Malicious Mischief, 441. 
Criminal Law, 203. EYidence, 288. Eztortion, 

347. Witness, 679. 
Conspiracy, 155. Indictment, 387. WitnoM, 677. 

Innholders, Ac. 391 . 

Practice, 558. 

Marriage, 444. 

EYidence, 302. Innholders, Ac. 393. 

Officer, 490. 

Complaint, 151. Justice of the Peace and dno- 
rum,413. Pleading, 527. Scire Fades, 600. 

Indictment, 384, 385. Innholders, Ac. 382. 

EYidence, 302. Innholders, Ac. 393. 

Gaming, 371. 

Grants, &c. 373. Public Lots, 570. 

Marriage, 443, 444. 

Exceptions, 318, 321. Innholders, Ac. 398. Wit- 
ness, 678. 

Tolls, Ac. 628. 

Certiorari, 145. Court of Sessions, 198. Way, 

Criminal Law, 202. 

Cheating, 147. 

Jury, 410. 

EYidence, 287. 

EYidence, 303. Forgery, 356. 

Amendment, 30. Debt, 212. 

Way, 665. 

Criminal Law, 202, 203. 

Justice of the Peace, 412. Perjury, 520. 

Indictment, 385. Penobscot Mill Dam Co. 519. 

Indictment, 386. 

Criminal Law, 203. EYidence, 314. Indictment. 
385, 386. 

Indictment, 388. 
Pleading, 51^. 

Digitized by 




XX. 41, State t. Great Wofilu 

























XTii. 211, 
XT. 100, 

XXT. 500, 

XT. 476, 

X. 24, 

u. 115, 

XXTl. 263, 

Ti. 118, 

XTui. 368, 

X. 109, 

u. 62, 

Ti. 462, 

XTiii. 346, 

xxi. 14, 

xxi. 20, 

XTi. 293, 

XX. 19, 


State V. 
State T. 
State T. 
State V. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State y. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 



State T. Milk, 
State V. Murray, 
State T. NewbegiD, 
State T. Noble, 
State T. Pownal, 

State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State T. 
State V. 
State T. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 













xyii. 154, State y. Stinson, 




























State T. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 
State T. 
State T. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 
State y. 

Waldo Bank, 
T. Bumham, 
T. Bumham, 
T. Godfrey, 

Tiii 320, 

i. 1. 

XT. 327, 

tB. 152, 

XTi. 204, 

Tii. 452, 

ii. 358, 

xi. 408, 

Steams t. Hubbard, 
Steele t. Adams, 
Steele t. Putney, 

Stephenson ▼. Gooeh, 
Stetson T. French, 
Stetson T. Healey, 
Stetson T. Patten, 
Stetaoa t. Veazie, 

,ST. ' 

Corporation, 185. Indictment, 385. 

ComplaiBt, 151. Indictmant, 384. 

Adultery, 13. CyideM>«, 313. Marriaf*, 444. 

Indictment, 386. 

Costs, 190. 

Adultery, 13. Marriage, 444. 

IndictOMut, 384. Nuieanoe, 480. 

Perjury, 520. 

Way, 668. 

Justice of the Peaea, 412. Panpar, 516. 

Innholders, &e. 393, 394. 

Statutes, 616. 

Eyidenoe,288,289, 300. Statutes, 616. 

Criminal Law, 203. Warrant, 653. 

Indictment, 387. 

Crimiiial Law, 203. Eyidence, 299. Exoeptioas, 

CbeatiBf, 147. 

Conspiracy, 155. Eseape, 273. 

Breaking or Burglary, 144. 

Indiotment, 385. 

Certiorari, 146. Court of Sessions, 198. Way, 

Recognisance, 576. 

C. C. Pleas, Ac, 196. Indictment, 386, 387. 

Nuisance, 480. 

Criminal Law, 202. Forgery, 355. 

Indictment, 384. 

Recognizance, 576. 

Habeas Corpus, 377. Parent and Child, 491. 

Criminal Law, 202. Jury, 410. Riot, 586. 

Criminal Law, 202, 203. Exceptions, 321. 

Exceptions, 321. Verdict, 650. 

Evidence, 313. Indictment, 387. Witness, 679. 

Criminal Law, 203. Exceptions, 322. Indictment, 
384. Practice, 548. 

Indictment, 385, 386. Inoholdera, ^ 392. Ju- 
risdiction, 409. 

Esteppel, 280. Way, 662. 

Indictment, 388. Inotholders, &c. 393. 

Cnminal Law, 202. Way, 665. 

Indictment, 386. 

Arson, 48. Indictment, 384. 

Bank, 93. Judgment, 404. 

Innholders, Ac. 392. 

Costs, 190. 

Adultery, 13. Eyidence, 309. Marriage, 444. 

Adultery, 13. 

Reyiew, 584. 

Indictment, 384, 387, 388. Witness, 677. 

Town, 630. Voting, 652. 

Partnership, 500. 

Bills, &c. Ill, 129. Executors, ^. 346. 

Conditfon, 154. Granta, dbc. 373. Mortgage, 
464. Seizin, Ac. 604. 

Equity, 266. Frauds, Statute of; 368. 

Estoppel, 274. Eyidence, 296. 

Estoppel, 279. Notice and Demand, 478. Offi- 
cer, 488. 

Fisheries, 350. 

Deed, 231. 

Arbitration, 45. Pleadings 523. 

Agency, 18, 22. Deed, 218. 

Seizin, Ac. 604. 

Digitized by 




19, StereiM v. Tom. 

xi. 443, Sterens v. G«tcb«ll, 

zix. 96, SteveiM t. Legrow, 

ziz. 70, Btevens t. tnnt, 

xiv. 14, St«Y«n8 y. MclDtire, 

T. 96, 8t«Yeiif T. Mora*, 

Yii. 36, Steyeiis v. Mone, 

zzT. 94, SteYeu t. Owen, 

T. 103, Steward t. Allen, 

ix. 51, Steward v. Riggit 

X. 467, Steward t. Ri«i, 

i. 902, Stimpeon r. Gilchrial, 

Ti. 470,. Stimpfon v. Sprague, 

i. 931, Stinchfield t. Little, 

X. 963, Stinton t. Snow, 

xxi. 911, Straaon t. Walker, 

XX. 378, Stockwell v. Craig, 

XTii. 455, Stockwell v. Marks, 

xiT. 185, Stone ▼. Bradborf , 

xxii. 318, Stone v. Hyde, 

xxiii. 497, Stone y. IHcbols, 

xyi. 938, Stone y. Oisood, 

xxyi. 110, Stone y. Tibbetta, 

xix. 965, Stone y. Tilaon, 

xyiii. 174, Storer y. Go wen, 

ii. 387, Stowell y. Pike, 

yilL 191, Strafford Bank y. Croa- 

xi. 467, Stratton y. Foster, 

y. 313, Strout y. Bradbnry, 

xxii. 999, Strout y. Clements, 

xxiii. 483, Stront y. Durham, 

yiii. 196, Strout y. Goocb, 

ii. 378, Stabbs y. Page, 

xxii. 196, Stodley y. Hall, 

X. 100, Stardiyant y. Frothing- 

iy. 534, Stnrdiyant y. Greeley, 

xii. 590, Stnrdiyant y. Sweetaer, 

ii. 109, Stnrpis y. Read, 

xi. 496, Snlhvan y. Lowder, 

iii. 993, Sumner y. Sebec, 

xix. 494, Sutherland y. Kittridge, 

iy. 384, Swett y. Green, 

xi. 179, Swett y. Patrick, 

xii. 9, Swett y. Patrick, 

BT — TA. 

Militia, 447, 449. 

Abatement, 5. Wrk, 681. 

Execution, 333. 

Partnership, 509. 

Bills, Ac. 105, 106. 

License, 496. 

Exeeutiott, 335. 

Dower, 946, 947. 

Execution, 395. Pleading, 590. Scire Faoiaa, 

Bond, 197. Writ, 681. 

Bond, 187. Law and Pact, 491. Witness, 674. 
Pleading, 531. Verdict, 660. 
Attomej, 86. 
Agencj, 90, 99. 
Officer, 488. 
Assumpsit, 66. Contract, 171. Practice, 558. 

Sale, 594. 
Contract, 174, 180. Exceptions, 391. 
Fixtures, 359. Landlord and Tenant, 417, 418. 
Bills, &c. 106. Bond, 187, 149. Eyidence, 904. 
Attorney, 88. Lien, 498, 499. 
Limitations, 436. 
Militia, 448. 
Contract, 173. 

Bond, 140. Poor Debtors, 588, 540. 
Bailment, 90. Eyidence, 314. Law and Fact, 

License, 496. Mortgage, 460. 

Bills, Ac. 199. Surety, 618. 

Writ, 681. 

Attachment, 80. Indofser of Writ, 888. Officer, 

484. Writ, 681. 
Arbitration, 44. Exceptions, 899. 
Agency, 19. Pleading, 699, 531. Practice, 547, 

Arrest, 47. 

Coyenant, 901. 'Damages, 909. 

Jury, 410. Verdict, 669. 

Execution, 395, 398. Officer, 483. 

Reyiew, 584. 

Execution, 398, 330. 

Execution, 394. Executors, 4bc. 340, 349. 

Eyidence, 996. 

Emancipation, 951. Eyidenee, 808. Pauper, 506. 

Amendment, 97. Eyidence, 316. Exceptions, 

Assignment, 50. 
Coyenant, 901. Joint Tenants, 4kc. 409. Plead. 

ing, 523. 
Damages, 209. 

xyiii. 12, Tapley y. Smith, 

xyii. 113, Tarr y. Northey, 

yii. 129, Taylor y. Day, 

iii. 204, Taylor y. Greely, 

iii. 433, Taylor y. Hnghes, 


Assumpsit, 68. Property, 567. 
Frauds, Statute oC, 366. Officer, 483. 
Trustee Process, 639. 
New Trial, 475. 
Bastardy, 97. 

Digitized by 


TiMUt or OASM. 




































Tajlor ▼. Smith, 
Temploton t. Cnm, 

Thatelier t. Toaof , 
Thaxter ▼. Brmdley, 
Thmyer ▼. Havener, 
Thajrer t. Jewett, 
ThajrerT. McLellan, 
Thajer t. Mills,- 
Thajer ▼. Minchin, 
Thayer ▼. Searey, 
Thing T. Uhbey, 
Thomaa ▼. Hardinf, 

BUU, Ac 104. Huaband and 

Seisin, &o. 604. 


MUitia, 446. 
Aaaompeit, 71. 

WiA, 380. 
Evidenoe, 397. 
Equity, 263. 
Aflsianment, 50. 
BUla, Ae. 128. 
Real Actions, 675. 
Limitations, 438. 
Poor Debtors, 534. 
Constitutional Law, 161. 
In&n^ 390. 
Agency, 17, 21. Efidence, 315. 

Lotteries, 441. Statutes, 615. 

Deed, 223, 224. Flan, 521. 

Deed, 230. Limitations, 430. Seiaiii, 4bc. 606, 

Indorser of Writ, 3e)9. 


xiii. 159, 

xxi. 195, 

iii. 50, 
xi. 139, 
▼. €2, 

Tii. 377, 
xxri. 141, 
xxT. 104, 

Tu. 439, 
ii. 186, 

xui. 407, 
iw. 264, 
X. 27, 

xiu. 420, 

xix. 235, 

xix. 244, 
xiv. 316, 

XX. 479, 
xxi. 393, 

XT. 263, 

U. 312, 
iu. 380, 
iiL 429, 
xiii 430, 
xxTi. 402, 
xi. 253, 
xu. 150, 

xxu. 335, 

xi. 74, 

XTi. 283, 

xix. 204, 

xu. 122, 

xu. 341, 

xxi. 426, 

lui. 240, 

Tiii. 163, 

xxiT. 29, 

Thomas t. Mahan, 
Thomas t. Patten, 
Thomas t. Pickering, 
Thomas v. Washburn, 
Thomaston t. St. 

Thonuston t. Vinal- 

Thomaston Bank t. 

Tbomes, ex parte, 
Thomes t. Moody, 
Thompson t. Andros- 

coggin Bridge, Deed, 227. Easemeiit, 251. Real Actions, 575. 

Thompson t. Chandler, Assignment, 52. Mortgage, 463, 464. 
Thompson t. Hallett, Equity, 262, 266. 
"■* '" Physician, 521. 

Seizin, &e. 606. 

BiUi, Ac. 121. ^Tidenee, 291. 

Dxecutiou, 328, 330. 

Partnership, 498. Shipping, 611. 

Attachment, 73. Bailment, 91. 

Judgment, 407. Trustee Process, 642, 645. 

Dix Island, 243. Pauper, 509. 

Alien, 26. Pauper, 507. 
I Bank, 93. Mortgage, 459. Usury, 649. Wit* 
) ness, 675. 

Husband and Wife, 379. 

Forcible Entry, 354. Property, 567- 

Thompson t. Haien, 
Thompson t. Knight, 
Thompson ▼• Linscott, 
Thompson t. Oakes, 
Thompson t. Snow, 
Thompson t. StSTcns, 
Thompson t. Taylor, 
Thompson t. Thomp* 

Estoppel, 277. 

Thompson T. Thompson, Fraud, Slc. 362. 
Thompson t. Watsonj Real Actions, 574, 575. 

Thompson t. Wiley, 
Thorn t. Case, 
Thorn t. Rice, 

Thomdike t. Barrett, 
Thomdike t. Barrett, 

Bail, 90. Fees, 347. 

Militia, 448, 451, 453, 454. 

Bills, 4«. 119, 131. Law and Fact, 421. 


Deed, 227. Executors, 4^. 336. 
Deed, 214. Proprietors pf Common Lands, 568* 


Thomdike t. Clodfrey, Agency, 18. Bills, ^. 126. 

Thomdike t. Richards, Deed, 214, 224. 

Thomton t. Foss, Flats, 353. 

Thornton t. Moody, Bills, Ac. 122. Eyidence, 284. 

Thornton t. U. S. Ins. 


Thrasher t. Tnttle, 
Thurston t. Foster, 
TibbetU t. Haskins, 
TibbetU t. Shaw, 

Insurance, 396, 597. 

Husband and Wife, 380. 

Contract, 174. 

Assumpsit, 71. Damages, 208. Evidence, 290, 

Abatement, 2, 4, 5. Amendment, 27. Costs, 190. 
C. C. Pleas, Ac. 196. 
Tibbetts t. Merrill, Evidence, 292. Execution, 328, 330. Officer, 483. 

Tibbetts t. Towie, Sale, 590. 

Ticonie Bank v. John- > Bank, 93. Bills, Ac. 120, 134. Evidence, 295. 

son, > Usury, 648. 

Ticonie Bridge v. Moor, Corporation, 188. 
Tillson V. Bowley, Bastardy, 97, 98. Time, 627. 

Tilton T. Hunter, Deed, 218. Seizin, Ac. 604. Settlers, 609. 

Digitized by 




iii. 120, Tinkham Y. Arnold, 

xz. 381, 
xi. 218, 
iv. 542, 
T. 382, 
XV. 89, 
xi. 41, 
xi. 34, 

ii. 55, 
iii. 305, 

XX vi. 464, 

ui. 22, 

XV. 258, 

X. 434, 

xiii. 315, 

XT. 82, 

xxu. 203, 

Ix. 60, 

u. 120, 

xxvi. 217, 

xxiii. 234, 

i. 408, 
Tii. 266, 
XI. 227, 



















iu. 396, 

xxli. 121, 

vii. 426, 

xxvi. 395, 

xvii. 437, 
u. 221, 

vii. 175, 
xvi. 380, 
xiii. 41, 

Titcomb v. Keene, 
Titcomb v. Potter, 
Titcomb v. Seaver, 
Titcomb v. Thomas, 
Titua V. Frankfort, 
Todd V. Bucknami 
Todd V. Darling, 

Todd V. Rome, 
Tompaon v. Muaaej, 

Towle V. Larrabee, 
Towle V. Marrett, 
Trafton v. Alfred, 
Trafton v. Dore, 
Trafton v. Rogers, 

Traip v. Gould^ 
Treat v. Cooper, 
Treat v. IngaJls, 
Treat v. McBiahon, 
Treat v. Orono, 
Treat v. Strickland, 

Triboa V. Reynolds, 
Tripp V. Garey, 
Trott V. Warren, 

True V. Halev, 
True V. HarcUng, 
True V. Thomas, 
Tucker v. Andrews, 
Tucker v. Lane, 
Tucker v. Smith, 
Tuckerman v. French, 

TI. — TY. 

Evidence, 296. Mills, 456. Practice, 554. Pre- 
scription, 562. Presumption, 562. Seizin, Slc 

Bond, 142. Evidence, 294. 

Equity, 266. New Trial, 474. 

Affency, 25. Trustee Process, 641. 

Bills, Ac. 111. 

Actions, Ac. 11. Way, 663. 

Assignment, 55, 56. 

Executors, Ac. 399. Judgment, 405. Trustee 
Process, 639. 

Certiorari, 145. Wajr, 662, 666. 

Assessonf, 48. Malicious FVosecution, 442. New 
Trial, 475. Town, 630. Verdict, 651. 

Bills, ^. 103. Lord's Day, 440. 

Physician, 520. Statutes, 617. 

Schools, Ac 597. Tax, 625. 

Assumpsit, 64. 

Abatement, 4. Bills, Ac. 106. Evidence, 293. 
Practice, 548. 

Equity, 253, 256. Fraud, Ac. 362. 

Bills, Ac. 112. 

Review, 584. 

Amendment, 27. 

Assumpsit, 64. Presumption, 563. Tax, 624. 

Amendment, 29. Betterments, 102. Deed, 226, 
232. Evidence, 316. Flats, 353. Mortgage, 
459. Real Actions, 572, 573. Statutea, 617. 

Militia, 451. 

Militia, 446. 
Corporation, 184, 186. 

Mortgage, 465. 
Bills, Ao. 113, 122. 
Bills, Ac. 113. 
Equity, 253, 258, 265, 2( 
Attachment, 74. 
Bills, Ac. 126. 
Guaranty, 374. 

Fraud, Ac. 363. Sale, 

Tuckerman v. Hartwell, Bills, Ac. 104, 116. 

Tuell V. Paris, 
Tukey v. Smith, 
Turner v. Bachelder, 
Turner v. Brunswick, 
Turner v. Buckfield, 
Turner v. Carsley, 
Turner v. Protection 

Ins. Co., 
Turner v. Turner, 
Turner v. Whidden, 
Tuttle V. Cary, 
Tuttle V. Gates, 

Tuttle V. Lane, 
Twombly v. Hunne- 

Tyler v. Carleton, 
Tyler v. Carleton, 
Tyler v. Dyer, 

PracUce,555. Way, 664. 

Attachment, 80. Officer, 485, 486. 

Attachment, 74.. Property, 567. 

Pauper, 513. 

Pauper, 506, 511. 

CosU, 192. Practice, 561. 

Insurance, 397. 

Divorce, 241. 

Coniraci, 170, 174. 

Constable, 155. Evidence, 284 

Execution, 334. 

Sale, 595. 
Mortgage, 468. 

Town, 630. 
New Trial, 476. Officer, 489. 

Real Actions, 571. 

Attachment, 84. Officer, 487. 

Evidence, 296. Fraud, Ac. 360. 

Arbitration, 46. 

Arbitration, 38, 40, 41, 46. Evidence, 281, 297. 

Digitized by 


"tJ. — v. — WA. 
























Uloker y. Canniiigliaiii, 
Ulmer v. Hills, 
Ulmerv. Lelaod, 
Ulmer ▼. Paine, 
Ulmer t. Reed, 
Umtmrian Society y, 

Unity T. Thorndike, 
Upham T. Bradley, 

Upton T. Gray, 
Usher v. Uaseltine, 
Usher ▼. Severance, 


OflM)er,487. Pleadins, 583. 

Depodtion, 234. ETidenee, 304. Sale, 695. 

Law and Fact, 421. Malicious Prosecution, 442. 

Actions, Slc. 8. Assumpsit, 64. 

Bills, Ae. 122. 

Equity, 263. Trusts, 646. 

Pauper, 514. 

Abatement, 3, 4. Attorney, 85. Joint Tenants, 

&o. 402. Mortcage, 46l. Partition, 495, 496. 

Practice, 548. Public LoU, 570. 
Afency, 20. 
Fraud, &4i, 359, 360. 
Law and Fact, 422. Libel and Slander, 425. 


XYiii. 70, Valentine v. True, 

iy. 62, Vallance t. Sawyer, 

rii. 164, Vance v. Carle, 

riii. 132, Vance v. Vance, 

xyii. 203, Vance v. Vance, 

xxi. 364, Vance ▼. Vance, 

XV. 314, Vargas ▼. Newhall, 

ii. 121, Vamer ▼. Nobleborough, 

xxU. 331, Vamey y. Stevens, 

iv. 168, 

ii. 91, 

xU. 338, 

XV. 455, 
vii. 131, 
xxiii. 170, 
vii. 91, 
ziii. 289, 
xii. 315, 
zx. 34, 
ii. 322, 

zui. 268, 
zu. 331, 

Varrell v. Holmes, 
Varrill v. Heald, 
Vassal borough v. Ken- 

nebec,Co. Com. 
Vaughan v. Bacon, 
Veazie*s case, 
Veazie v. Parker, 
Veazy v. Harmony, 
Vickerie v. Buswell, 
Vickerie v. Pierce, 
Vickery v. Sherburne, 
Vose V. Handy, 

Vose V. Howard, 
Vuse Y. Manly, 

Militia, 449. 

Appeal, 35. Recognixanoe, 576. Scire Facias, 599. 

Arbitration, 45. Ezceptions, 319. 

Divorce, 242. Evidence, 315. 

Divorce, 242. Judgment, 405. 

Dower, 247. Estoppel, 277. Husband and Wife, 

Sale, 593, 594. 
Assumpsit, 72. Bills, Slc. 108, 113. Evidenoe, 

286, 304. 
Bettermento, 100. Devise, 6lc. 239. Release, &«. 

579. Seizin, Ac, 603. 
Malicious Prosecution, 442. 
Damages, 204. Evidenoe, 300. Officer, 489. 

Certiorari, 146. County Com'rs, 196. Way, 656. 

Limitations, 430. Seizin, Sui. 605. 

Indictment, 385. 

Attachment, 76. Deed, 218. 

Tender, 626. 

Estoppel, 276. Mills, 456. 

Apprentice, 36. 

Pleading, 533. RepJevin, 582. 

Assignment, 50. Bond, 136. Deed, 223, 226. 

Mortgage, 462, 468. 
Court Martial, 197. 
Abatement, 5. Court Martial, 197. Evidence, 307. 


xii. 403, Wadleigh v. Gilman, 

zi. 278, Wadsworth v. Smith, 

zziii. 562, Wadsworth v. Smith, 

zv. 144, Waite v. Delesdemier, 

iv. 102, Waite v. Merrill, 

zi. 185, Waite v. Osborne, 

zz. 393, Wakefield v. Campbell, 

xvi. 419, Waldo Bank v. Greely, 

xvi. 416, Waldo Bank v. Lum- 

Bangor, 92. 

Deed, 229. River, 586. Toll, Ac. 628. Way, 655. 

Bills, Ac. 107. 

Assumpsit, 63. Pleading, 524. 

Shakers, 609. 

Trustee Process, 639. 

Ezecutors, dec. 337. 

Evidence, 301. Partnership, 503. 

Partnership, 500. 

Digitized by 



JABIM W €idWk 

xxii. 486, WaldroB ▼. Borry, 

XT. 207, Walker ▼. Bndbary, 

ii. 270, Walker t. Foxoroft. 

iii. 315, Walker t. Green, 

xxi. 481, Walker v. Hill, 

IT. 43], Walker t. McCalloch, 

xiii. 17^), Walker t. Merrill, 

Tiu. 388, Walker t. Sanborn, 

xii. 60, Walker t. Webber, 

XX. 374, Wallace t. Carlisle, 

xxiT. 386, Wallingfbrd t. Fiake, 

xiT. 375, Ward t. Abbott, 

xxiii. 316, Ward t. Bailey, 

XTiii. 290, Ward t. Dennis, 

xxiT. 177, Ware t. Adams, 

XTi. 386, Ware t. Ash, 

xxiT. 183, Ware t. Fowler, 

XX. 391, Ware t. Hunnewell, 

XXIT. 166, Ware t. Jackson, 

Tiii. 387, Ware t. Otis, 

xii. 303, Ware t. Pike, 

Tii. 74, Ware T. Wadleigb, 

TiU. 43, Ware t. Ware, 

XX. 139, 

XX. 144, 

i. 167, 

XT. 70, 

XTii. 360, 
Ti. 479, 
XX. 443, 
Tii. 63, 

XTi. 439, 

TI. 9, 

xu. 351, 
xxiii. 453, 

XTi. 359, 
xxi. 484, 

xxiT. 561, 
XT. 443, 

xxii. 160, 
Tiii. 203, 

iT. 333, 
IT. 330, 
iT. 334, 

xxii. 337, 
T. 435, 

xiT. 301, 

xxi. 357, 

xix. 406, 

XTi. 88, 

Ti. 137, 

T. 433, 
xxT. 313, 

Warren t. Coombs, 
Warren t. Coombs, 
Warren t. Crabtree, 
Warren t. Gilman, 
Warren t. Oilman^ 
Warren t. Hope, 

Warren t. Islesborougb, Pauper, 515< 

WA — WB. 

Damages, 311. 

Descent, Ac, 236. DeTise, Ac. 341. ProbaU 

Court, 565. 
Attachment, 79, 80. OAeer, 464, 485. 
Jury, 409. 
Ofl&er, 481. 

Bills, dtc, 137. Release, Ac. 579. 
Arbitration, 41, 43. Costa, 193. 
Arbitration, 38, 43, 44. Exceptions, 319. 
CoTenant, 301. 
Poor Debtors, 539, 543. 

Seizin, Ae. 603. Tax, 633, 684« Witness, 675. 
Exceptions, 319. 
Verdict, 651. 
Militia, 446. 

BiUs, Aas. 108. Guarantj, 374. 
Poor Debtors, 536. 
Damages, 305. 
Partition, 496. 

Damages, 311. Poor Debtors, 538, 543, 546. 
Pledge, 533. 

Debt, 313. Execution, 335. 
Landlord and Tenant, 415. 
Costo, 190. EWdence, 303, 317. Exceptions, 

319. Law and Fact, 433. Practice, 550, 552, 

557,559. Witness, 679, 680. 
Bills, ^^, 103, 136. Costs, 190. ETidenoe, 300. 
Costs, 190. Usury, 649. 
Usury, 647, 648. 

Bills, 4^0. 132. New Trial, 475. 
Bank, 93. Bills, &e. 114. 
New Trial, 474. RcTlew, 584. 

Warren t. Litchfield, 
Warren t. Ocean Ins. > 
Co. 5 

Warren t. Pierce, 
Warren t. Thatcher, 
Warren t. Walker, 

Warren t. Warren, 
Warren t. Wheeler, 

Warren t. Whitney, 

Warren Academy t. 

Washburn t. Mosely, 
Waterborough t. New- 
Waterhouse t. Dorr, 
Waterhouse t. Gibson, 
Waterhouse t. Gibson, 
Waterhouse t. Smith, 
Waterston t. Getcbell, 
Watson T. Lisbon > 
Bridge, 5 

Wayne v. Greene, 
Webb T. Wilshire, 
Webber v. Mallett, 
Webber t. Webber, 

Webster's case, 
Webster T.C}ark, 

Pleading, 531. 

Agency, 14. Amendment, S6. Contract, 168. 

Corporation, 186, 188. 
ETidence, 301. Presumption, 562. 
Contract, 168. 
Error, 272. ETidence, 297. Exceptions, 322. 

Limitations, 438. 
Bills, &^c. 120, 132. 
Assumpsit, 72. Condition, 154. Contract, 169, 

175. Damages, 208. Evidence, 288. 
Contract, 169. 

C Actions, dec. 8. Bills, &c. 106, 131. Corpora- 
<tion, 188. ETidence, 292. Limitations, 435, 
Pleading, 533. Poor Debtors, 545. 

Pauper, 511. 

Auction, 89. 

Deed, 227. ETidence, 291 . Exeontion, 329. 

Damages, 305. Ofiicer, 487. 

Attachment, 75, 77. Officer, 484. 

Sale, 590. 

Damages, 206. ETidence, 284. New Trial, 477. 

Way, 663. Witness, 672. 
Pauper, 509, 510. 
Assumpsit, 66. Usury, 648, 649. 
Ezecuuon, 331 . Mortgage, 461 . Partition, 496. 
Betterments, 100. CoTsnant, 200. Deed, 222. 

Estoppel, 275. Executors, &c. 336. Heirs, 378. 
Indictment, 385. 
Equity, 253, 256. 

Digitized by 




▼. 319« Webfter t. Drinkwater, Aetknt, dke. 8. Ageney, 99. Aftmimh, 69. 

Contnot, 166. 

Ti. S56» Webfter t. Maddoz, Deed, 817. 

zzT. 396, Webster t. Withej, Eanitjr, 866. Frasd, Ac. 361. 

Tiii. 75, Wedcewood*s caee, Adalterj, 13. ETidenoe, 300. Jfarriace, 444. 

XTui. 49, Weeki T. Pinea, DeTiM, Ae, 837, 341. 

zzi. 465, Weeks ▼. Thomas, Assvmpeit, 63. MortgBfe, 461. 

zzii. 396, Welch t. Cheslej, ReoognisADoe, 577. 

xxT. 86, Welch y. Whittemore, Mortga|{e, 478. 

xxiik 85, Welcome t. Batchelder, Exceptioiis, 9628. Fraud, dec. 368. Practice, 564 . 


, 676, 677, 678. 
tL 93, Weld T. Androeeog gi a 

Side Booms, Booms, 144. 

X. 90, Weld T. Green, Demeges, 905. Estofpel, 879. OlBoer, 486. 

XT]. 51, Wellington t. Drew, Trespass, 635. 
u. 388, WeU*scase, RcTiew, 584. 

Tiii. 900, Wells t. Kennebonh, Pauper, 506. 
xxii. 131, Wells t. Waterhonse, Assumnit, 63. New Trial, 475. 
xxi. 150. Wentworth t. Goodwin , Bills, Ac. 104, 107. 
xi. 446, Wentworth t. Wej- 

month. Trustee Process, 640, 644. 

xTii. 70,^ Wentworth t. Yoonc, Attachment, 74. 
xxii. 408," Wescott t. McDonald, Execoton, d&c. 338. Tax, 683. 
Til. 363, Westbrook t. Bowdoin- 

ham, Estoppel, 879. Panper, 509, 510. 

ii. 179, Westbrook t. North, Waj, 660, 661. 
xxiT. 374, Weston ▼. DsTis, Assumpsit, €&. Attomer, 86. 

xxr. 176, WesUn t. Dorr, Attachment, 77, 83. Officer, 489. Release, Ae. 

XTii. 987, Weston t. Htgfat, Donatio Causa Mortis, 943. 

XTiii. 981, Weston t. Hight, Bills, Ac. 106, 133. Contract, 168. ETidenee, 

881. Practice, 548. Witness, 678. 
xi. 396, Weston t. Stuart, Arbitration, 38, 40. Guardian, 376. Husband 

and Wile, 381. 
xxii. 385, Wejmouth t. Gorfaam, Assumpsit, 60. House of Correction, 378. 
xiT. 914, Weymouth t. McLellan, Assumpsit, 61. 
xxiT. 418, Wheeler t. Barnard, Agencj, 80. 
XXT. 883, Wheeler t. Cowan, ETidenoe, 895. Fordble Entrj, 364. Landlord 

and Tenant, 419. 
xzTi. 133, Wheeler t. ETans, Assignment, 55, 58. Trustee P rocess, 644. 

xii. 341, Wheeler t. Fish, Attachment, 77. 

xxiii. 308, Wheeler t. Frontier 

Bank, Bank, 94. Const. Law, 161. Corporation, 187. 

xii. 389, Wheeler t. Hatch, CoTenant, 199. ETidenee, 888. 

xTi. 389, Wheeler t. Hill, ETidenee, 289, 318. Landlord and Tenant, 417. 

Practice, 554. 
xri. 18, Wheeler T. Lothrop, ETidenee, 283, 898. Scire Facias, 600. 
XXT. 887, Wheeler t. Wood, Forcible Entry, 354, 355. Landlord and Tenant, 

xix. 427, Whipple t. Gilpatrick, Notice and Demand, 479. Sale, 590. 
XTiii. 81, Whitcomb T. Higgins, Militia, 449. 
ir. 980, White t. Dickinson, Bond, 141. 
z. 306, White t. Erskine, Mortgage, 464. 

xxii. 341, White t. Fox, Clerk of the Courts, 14a 

xxiT. 531, White t. Henry, Emancipation, 851. Parent and Child, 499. 

xii. 157, White t. Hofanan, " ETidenee, 313. Husband and Wife, 381. 
xxTi. 361, White t. Mann, Contract, 173, 175. Executors, Ac. 346. Mort- 

gage, 473. Presumption, 5^. 
XT. 470, White t. Perley, Abatement, 5. Conflict of Laws, 155. Contract, 

173, 181, 188. Pleading, 587. 
T. 147, White T. Philbrick, Judgment, 406 

zxir. 999, White t. Wilkins, Bond, 137, 148. 

xiii. 146, Whitefield t. Longfel- 
low, Bond, 137. Contraet, 166. Duress, 960. 

Digitized by 


TABLK or OA8B8* 

rri. 398, Whiting ▼. Trafton, 

xxTi. 335, Whitman t. Cox, 

xxiii. 185, Whitman ▼. Freeie, 

xxiii. 212, Whitman ▼. Freete, 

xxiT. 236, Whitman t. Granite 

XTi. 461, Whitman y. Watson, 

xxii. 564, Whitmore t. Hogan, 

Tiii. 310, Whitmore ▼. Sanborn, 

xxiT. 406, Whitnej v. fialkam, 

xix. 42, Whitney t. Munroe, 

xW. 394, Whitney ▼. Stearns, 

i. 57, Whittemore ▼. Brooks, 

xiv. 296, Whittier v. Dow, 

iii. 82, Whittier v. Grafiam, 

xiii. 238, Whiitier t. Heminwaj, 

XTi. 403, Whittier ▼. Vose, 

XV. 309, Wiffgin ▼. Fitch, 

xi. 193, Wiley ▼. Collins, 

XX. Ill, Wilkins v. French, 

vi. 220, Wilkins ▼. Reed, 

IT. 14, Willard v. Moulton, 

xxiii. 14^ Williams y. Burrill, 

xvi. 207, Williams ▼. Cole, 

iii. 276, Williams ▼. Gilman, 

iii. 207, Williams t. Gray, 

xxi. 521, Williams y. Kinsman, 

xviii. 120, Williams v. McDonald, 

xix. 454, Williams ▼. Turner, 

yiii. 106, 

iii. 135, 

XX .ii. 17, 

ix. 74, 

xii. 398, 

xvi. 84, 

xxir. 206, 

xvii. 9, 
vii. 207, 
XX. 385, 
XV. 55, 

xii. 58, 

XX. 421, 

XV. 479, 

xxiii. 131, 

xxvi. 406, 

xxiii. 410, 

iv. 298, 

xiiL 111, 

xxiv. 366, 
viL 31, 

xxiv. 128, 
xxi. 430, 

xxiii. 35, 

XX. 287, 
xvi. 319, 

Williams v. Veazie, 

Williams v. Williams, 

WilUams v. Wiilkms, 

Williams College t« 

WUUams CoUege v. ; 
Mallett, i 

Williams CoUege v. 

Williamsburg v. Gil- 

Willis V. Cresey, 

Wilson V. Ayer, 

Wilson V. Chase, 

Wilson V. Gillis, 

Wilson V. Hanson, 
Wilson V. Russ, 
Wilton V. Falmouth, 
Wilton V. Harwood, 
Windham v. Cumber- 
land County Com., 
Windham v. Portland, 
Windsor v. China, 
Wing V. Burcis, 
Wing V. Clark, 
Wing V. Davis, 
Wing V. Dunn, 
Wing V. Kennedy, 
Wingate v. King, 

Wingate v. Smith, 
Winslow V. Bailey, 

WH. — WI. 

Poor Debtors, 53S. 

Bank, 95. 

Bills, Ao. 107. Evidence, 291. 

Evidence, 294. Sale, 692. 

Corporation, 189. Evidence, 308. Practice, 666. 

Probate Court, 566. 

Schools, Ac, 598, 699. 

MiUtaa, 449. 

Militia, 454. 

Trustee Process, 642. 

Contract, 168,181. 

Deed, 216. Evidence, 282. 

Mortgage, 461. 

Bills, ^. 116, 118. 

Execution, 335. Judgment, 407. Officer, 485. 

BilU, &c. 128, 132. Evidence, 315, 316. New 
Trial, 477. 

Militia, 450. 

Assignment, 56. 

Dower, 244, 246. Mortgage, 460, 461. 

Bills, Ac. 109. Shipping, 611. 

Deed, 227. 

Poor Debtors, 538. 

Insurance, 396. 

Damages, 206. New Trial, 476. Usage, 647. 

Estoppel, 274. 

Betterments, 101. 

Poor Debtors, 537. 

Justices of the Peace and Quorum, 413. Justices, 
of the Peace, Quorum Unas, 413. Poor Debt- 
ors, 537, 539. 

Costs, 193. 

Divorce, 241. 

Assumpsit, 65. Shipping, 612. 

Limitations, 432, 433. Officer, 485. 
Mortgage, 461. Partition, 496^ 497. Proprietors 
of Common Lands, 569. 

Pleading, 533. Real Actions, 573, 574, 675. 

BTilitia, 447, 450, 454. 

Bills, Ac. 123. Rules of Court, 687. 

Fraud, &c. 360. 

Evidence, 285. Indorser of Writ, 388. 

Damages, 210. Officer, 488. Poor Debtors, 585, 

Assignment, 67, 58. Evidence, 292. 
Attorney, 87. Execution, 336. 
Pauper, 606. 
Equity, 255, 266. Frauds, Statute of, 368. 

Way, 666, 657. 

Pauper, 512, 515. 

Pauper, 512, 513. Time, 627. 

Deed, 223> 232. Evidence, 293. 

Sale, 588. 

Mortgage, 465, 467. Tender, 626. 

Costs, 190. Usury, 649. 

Poor Debtors, 544. 

Actions, Si4i. 9. Assumpsit, 64. ContMct, 171, 

172. Fraud, &o. 368. M 

Replevin, 581, 582, 683. 
Bills, Ac, 132. Evidence, 304. 

Digitized by 


or c. 


zxira. 9, WiBslow T. Bank <^ 

XT. 276, Winslow ▼. Cop«land, 

%YU, 29, Winslow ▼. Crocker, 

ii. 64, Winslow y. Grindal, 

xii. 513, Winslow y. Kelly, 

zxy. 393, Winilow y. Kimball, 

xi. 127, Winalowy. Merrill, 

xix. 151, Winslow y. Mosher, 

y. 264, Winslow y. Prince, 

xyiti. 132, Winslow y. Tarbox, 

yii. 261, Winsor y. Catts, 

Hi. 110, Winthrop y. Curtis, 

iy. 297, Winthrop y. Curtis, • 

iii. 156, Winthrop y. Dooken- 

i. 906, Winthrop y. Winthrop, 

xii. 204, Wiseasset y. Trundy, 

iii. 38», Wiseasset y. Waldo- 


iy. 435, Wise v. Hilton, 

xiii. 9, Wise y. Tripp, 

iy. 31, Witham y. Cotts, 

xiy. 362, Witham y. Gowen, 

ii. 400, Witham y. Perkins, 

ii. 196, Witham v. Pray, 

xiii. 428, Witherell y. Milliken, 

xix. 132, Wolcott y. Strout, 

xxiy. 104, Wolfe y. Dorr, 

xxiii. 115, Wood y. Bolton, 

xix. 23, Wood y. Warren, 

xxiy. 358, Woodard y. Herbert, 

xiy. 154, Woodbury v. Bowman, 

iii. 85, Woodbury y. Northy, 

xxy. 317, Woodman y. Bodfish, 

yii. 181, Woodman y. Coolbroth, 

xxy. 531, Woodman y. Freeman, 

xxy. 90, Woodman y. Segar, 

xxy. 300, Woodman y. Somerset, 

xxiy. 151, Woodman y. Somerset > 
Co. Commissioners, ) 

yii. 178, Woodman y. Trafton, 

xxii. 401, Woodman y. Valentine, 

xxiy. 551, Woodman y. Valentine, 

iii. 350, Woodman y. Woodman, 

xi. 475, Woodruff y. Woodruff, 

ix. 15, Woodsum y. Sawyer, 

xyiii. 304, Woodward y. Shaw, 

xy. 228, Worth y. Curtis, 

xxiy. 158, Wright y. Keith, 

Ti. 415, Wright y. Wrigh^ 

xi. 429, Wyatt y. Sayage, 

xiii. 168, Wyer y. Andrews, 

yu. 342, Wyer y. Memll, 

iiL 183, Wyman y. Dorr, 

xyii. 329, Wyman y. Heald, 

ii. 337, Wyman y. Hook, 

WI. — WT. 

Pleading, 530. 

Bond, Vi9. Condition, 159. 

Husband and Wife, 380. 

Judgment, 405. Real Actioaa, 575. 

Witness, 677. 

Statutes, 615. WiU, 668. 

Abatement, 4. Amendment, 27. 

Deposition, 235. 

MilitU, 459. 

Mortgage, 470. Shipping, 610. 

Shipping, 611. 

Deed, 221. Plymouth Patent, 534. 

Betterments, 100. 

Damages, 910. Poor Debtors, 549. 
Parish, 492, 493. 
Penalty, 519. 

Pauper, 505, 510, 512. 

Bills, &e. 109. Eyidenoe, 313. 

Fraud, Ac 361. Witness, 671. 

Partition, 497. 

Malicious Prosecution, 442. 

Joint Tenants, dec. 409. 

Exceptions, 318. 

Trustee Process, 641,645. 

Agency, 19. Bills, 105. Contract, 167. 

Attachment, 74, 75. Eyidence, 309. Law and 

Fact, 493. Bfortgage, 469, 479. 
MiUtia, 451. 
Bills, Ac. 126. 
Bankruptcy, 96. 
Assignment, 51. 
Arbitration, 40, 47. 
Estoppel, 280. Execution, 332. Fraud, 4ko. 

361. Seizin, &c. 609. 
Deed, 915. Deposition, 234. Eyidence, 983. 

Practice, 550. 
Equity, 255, 958, 966. 
Eyidence, 289, 305. 
County, 195. County Commissioners, 196. Way, 

County Commissioners, 195. Mandamus, 449, 

443. Way, 661. 
Attachment, 81. 
Exceptions, 391. 
Poor Debtors, 536, 541, 545. 
Bills, Ac. 129. Payment, 517. 
Diyorce, 949. Eyidence, 306. 
Arbitration, 38. 
Bastardy, 97, 98. Eyidence, 314. Exceptions, 

Contract, 166, 167. Guardian, 377. 
Damages, 905. Officer, 482, 490. 
Amendment, 31 . Costs, 194. 
Deed, 223. 
Eyidence, 304, 307, 317. Execution, 335. Offi* 

cer, 483. 
Trustee Process, 649. 
Amendment, 26. Bailment, 91. Exceptions, 318. 

Repleyin, 560. 
Bills, Ac. 127. 
Assumpsit, 67. Exceptions, 318. Landlord and 

Tenant, 419. Practice, 554. 


Digitized by 



WY.— Y. 

zi. 396, Wjmui ▼. Winflow, BilU, &e. 110, 190. Tender, 696. 
XZT. 436, Wyman t. Wood, DepoaitioB, 236. Ezceptioiis, 383. Pnctioe, 551. 


ii. 1, York ▼. Penobicot, Paaper, 514. 
XTU. 55, York Bank ▼. Appleton, Attorney, 85. Collmteral Secority, 148. Wit- 

neM, 676. 
XTiii. 904, York Man. Co. ▼. Cutts, Equity, 253, 960, 269. 
ZTiii. 409, Young ▼. Garland, Amendment, 99. Way, 659, 664, 666. Witneae, 


Digitized by 





















































































Abbott, Butmui ▼. 

XX Y. 


Abbott, Guilford ▼. 



Abbott, Ireland y. 



Abbott, Kinslej v. 



Abbott, Lothrop y. 



Abbott, Martin y. 



Abbott, Ward v. 

AbyMinisn Society, Ruby y. 



Adams, Banka y. 

Adams, Cowan y. 



Adams, Dag^tt y. 



Adams, Fox v. 



Adams, Hatcbins y. 



Adams, Jewett y. 



Adams, Joy y. 



Adams, Lunt y. 

XX Y. 


Adams, Quimby y. 



Adams, Roberts y. 



Adams, State y. 



Adams, Steele y. 



Adams, Ware y. 



Aiken, Cram y. 



Alden, Durham y. 



Alden, Hardins y. 
Alfred, Kennebunk y. 





Alfred, Trafton y. 



AUbee, MeLellan y. 



Allen, Central Bank y. 



Allen, Dole y. 



Allen, Haskell y. 



Allen, Mitchell y. 



Allen, Nason y. 



Allen, Nason y. 



Allen, Richards y. 



Allen, Steward y. 



Allyn, Crosby y. 



Ames, State y. 



Anderson, Johnson y. 



Andrews, Marwick y. 

Andrews, Sargent v. 

Andrews, State v. 

Andrews, Tucker y. 

Andrews, Wyer v. 

Androscoggin bridge, Thomp- 
son Y. 

Androscoggin side booms, 
Weld v. 

Angier, Durham y. 

Annis, Deane v. 

Annis, Saffbrd v. 

Anson, Ormsby v. 

Appleton^ Baker v. 

Appleton, Buck v. 

Appleton, Crocker v. 

Appleton, Goodwin v. 

Appleton, Lord v. 

Appleton, York Bank y. 

Argyle, Barnard v. 

Argyle, Barnard v. 

Armstrong, Holbrook v. 

Armstrong, Savage Man. Co. y. 

Armstrong, Savage Man. Co. v. 

Arnold, Bean v. 

Arnold, Lothrop v. 

Arnold, Tinkham v. 

Ashe, Sargent v. 

Ash, Ware v. 

Askins, Kavanagh y. 

Atwood, Brown, v. 

Atwood, McNear v. 

Augusta, Barstow v. 

Avery, Eastman v. 

Avery, Johnson v. 

Avery, Lincoln v. 

Ayer, Cushing v. 

Ayer, Wilson v. 


xiv. 138, Babcock, Russell v. 

xxiii. 60, Bachelder, Franklin Bank v. 

xix. 82, Bachelder, Richardson v. 

xvii. 5257, Bachelder, Tomer v. 

viii. 324, Bachelor, McLaine v. 

xi. 88, Bacon, Galvin v. 

xxi. 280, Bacon, Pike v. 

iii. 346, Bacon, Bobbins v. 

XV. 455, Bacon, Vauchan v. 

xvi. 151, Bailey, Bagtey v. 

Digitized by 




xiii. 64, 

zziii. 104, 

xii. 254, 






























































































Bailej, ChurchUl t. 

ix. 19, 

Bailey, Craggin t. 

XI. 50, 

Bailey, Greene School Dis- 

xu. 134, 

trict t. 

XX. 51, 

Bailey, Jewett t. 

XTiii. 219, 

Bailej, McDonald t. 

xix. 259, 

Bailey, McNear t. 

xxii. 531, 

Bailey, State t. 

i. 304, 

Bailey, Ward t. 

iii. 92, 

Bailey, Window t. 

XX. 246, 

Baker, Blanchard t. 

xix. 387, 

Baker, BuUen t. 

xxiii. 475, 

Baker, Hawka t. 

iii. 369, 

Baker, Holbrook t. 

xii. 494, 

Baker, Marshall t. 

xxiii. 255, 

Baker, Penobscot Boom t. 

xxiii. 420, 

Baker, Sawyer t. 

ii. 13, 

Balch, Adams t. 

xxi. 399, 

Balch, Bulfinch t. 

uii. 483, 

Balch, Clapp t. 

T. 24, 

Balch, Greenough t. 

xviii. 125J, 

Balch, Savage v. 

viii. 179, 

Balch, WiUiams College t. 

xxi. 169, 

Baldwin, Holmes t. 

xxii. 486, 

Balkham, Whitney t. 
Ballard, Black t. 

xii. 415, 

XTii. 344, 

Ballard, Patndge t. 

xxiii. 154, 

Balmer, Jameson t. 

iii. 205, 

Bangor, Holton t. 

XTi. 246, 

Bangor, Jacobs t. 

xxiii. 470, 

Bangor Bank, Lapish t. 

XXTi. 56, 

Bangor House, Cram t. 

XT. 398, 

Bancor House, Hastinn t. 
Bank of Cumberland, Bad- 

XT. 122, 

xi. 485, 

ger T. 

xxiT. 25, 

Bank of Cumberland, Hamb- 

xxiT. 283, 


xiii. 381, 

Bank of Cumberland, Wins- 

XX T. 397, 

low T. 

X. 16, 

Barber, Starrett t. 

xxiT. 353, 

Baring, State t. 

xxT. 350, 

Barker, CaU t. 

Tu. 132, 

Barker, IngersoH t. 
Barker, P Jmer t. 

ii. 266, 

ii. 128, 

Barker, Smith t. 

u. 232, 

Barnard, Jewett t. 

xvi. 175, 

Barnard, Lamb t. 

XX. 109, 

Barnard, Wheeler t. 

XTiii. 327, 

Barrett, Morton t. 

xix. 348, 

Barrett, Morton t. 

xiT. 423, 

Barrett, Thomdike t. 

XTi. 192, 

Barrett, Thorndike t. 

iii. 172, 

Barstow, Flanders t. 

XT. 394, 

Bartlett, Daggett t. 
Bartlett, Greely t. 

xxiii. 546, 

XT. 400, 

Bartlett, Hobart t. 

XTi. 370, 

Bartlett, Rollins t. 

Bartlett, Rollins t. 

XTii. 310, 

Bartol, Dodge t. 

xxr. 317, 

Bartol, Freeport t. 
Batchelder, Welcome t. 

xi. 474, 

Ti. 427, 

Bath, DaTis t. 

xxiii. 115, 

Baxter, Rounds t. 

xix. 461, 

Beale, Ellis v. 

xviii. 142, 

Beale, Selden v. 

vi. 474, 

Bean, Copeland t. 
Bean, Dickinson ▼. 
Bean, Hall t. 
Bean, Herrick t. 
Bean, Knight t. 
Bean, Knight t. 
Bean, Knight t. 
Beaty, Foster t. 
Beckett, Haskell t. 
BelftAt, Reed t. 
Belgrade, Smithfield t. 
Belknap, Mitchell t. 
Bellard, Newcastle t. 
Belmont, Jackson t. 
Benjamin, Fuller T. 
Bennett, Bridgton T. 
Bennett, Cook t. 
Benson, Hopkins t. 
Berry, fiurbank t. 
Berry, Ripley t. 
Berry, Smith t. 
Berry, State t. 
Berry, State t. 
Berry, Waldron t. 
Betts, Agry t. 
Bicknell, Busweil t. 
Bicknell, Johnson t. 
Biddeford, Dixmont t. 
Bigeiow, Clark t. 
BiHings, Cobb t. 
Billings, Dore t. 
Billington, Calder t. 
Bishop, State t. 
Black, Gilmore t. 
Blackinton, Ludwig T. 
Blaisdell, Moulton t. 
Blake, Boies t. 
Blake, Bradbury t. 
Blake, Green t. 
Blake, OliTcr t. 
Blake, State t. 
Blakesburg, Means t. 
Blanchard, Cushman t. 
Blaney, Raid t. 
Blazo, Gorham t. 
Blen, Harris t. 
Blen, Robinson t. 
Blethen, Leadbetter t. 
Blethen, Norris t. 
Blish, Farrington t. 
' Blood, Scott T. 
Bloomfield, Canaan t. 
Blossom, Blake t. 
Blossom, Franklin Bank t. 
Blossom, Matthews t. 
Blue Hill Granite Co., Hinck. 


Bodfish, Cole t. 
Bodfish, Woodman t. 
Boies, State t. 
Bolster, Goddard t. 
Bolton, Wood t. 
Bond, Eddy t. 
Bond, Moore t. 
fionzey, Colson t. 

Digitized by 




BO. — BU. 


XIX. 150^ Boothbr, Marr v. 
xir. 77, Borlftnd, Lane v. 
xxrL 458, Boston and Maine R. R., 

Pndor T. 
xxiiL 573, Boswortfa, Burgesa r. 
xxiii. 165, Bourne, Roberts v. 
xii. 412, Bowden, Gilmore T. 
i- 1^29. Bowdoinham, Hallowell y, 
X. 268, Bowdoinham, Sedcley ▼. 
vii. 44^ Bowdoinham, Spnnger t. 
Til- 363, Bowdoinham, Westbrook ▼. 
Tiii. 163, Bowley, Tillion ▼. 
XXV. 157, Bowman, Mathews v. 
xiT. 154, Bowman, Woodbury t. 
V. 199, Bojd, Andrews v. 
xxir. 242, Boyd, Moore t. 
X. 43, Boyd, Skitlings ▼. 
XT. 147, Bojle, Owen v. 
xxiL 47, Boyle, Owen v. 
xxii. 287, Boynton, Bradley ▼. 
XTiii. 59, Bmckett, Currier v. 
xii. 39, Brackett, Lombard t. 
XX. 260, Bradbury, Baxter t. 
X. 447, Bradbury, Coming t. 
XX. 61 , Bradbury, Crosby v. 
xi. 118, Bradbury, New Gloucester 
School Fund t. 
▼iii. 181, Bradbury, SUples t. 
xIt. 185, Bradbury, Stone v. 
▼. 313, Bradbury, Strout v. 
XT. 207, Bradbury, Walker v. 
xxiy. 349, Bradford School District, 
I>aTis y. 
▼ii. 28, Bradford, Fisher r. 
xix. 62, Bradley, Carter t. 
xrii. 89, Bradley, Chase v. 
xirL 531, Bradley, Chase ▼. 
xix. 31, Bradley, Howe t. 
riu 411, Bradley, Osgood v. 
Ti. 60, Bradley, Seaver ▼. 
XT. 376, Bradley, Thaxter T. 
XTii. 423, Bradley, Upham t. 
XIT. 320, Bra|^don, Nowell t. 
XT. 54, Brainerd, Homer t. 
xxiT. 1 15, Brainerd, Neal t. 

ill. 197, Brewer, Garland t. 
xxiT. 281, Brewer, Hampden t. 
xi. 258, Brewer, Haskell t. 
xxi. 398, Bridge, Barrows t. 
xxiy. 145, Brid^, Hamlin t. 
xiT. 468, Bridge, Mason t. 
xiT. 429, Bridgham, Norris t. 
ixiu. 123, Briggs, Blaisdell t. 
xii. 373, Briggs, Fisk V. 
XT. 58, Brighton, Exeter t. 
ill. 243» Brock, Anderson v. 
xxii. 463, Brooks, Bradeen v. 
xxii. 80, Brooks, McAllister v. 
xiii. 391, Brooks, Middle Bridge t. 
xxiii. 543* Brooks, Sanford School Dia- 
trict T. 
i. 57, Brooks, Whittemore t. 
XX* f>7. Brown, Atkinson t. 
xxii. 295, Brown, Baifk of Portland y. 

xxii. 9, 
xxiii. 400, 
xi. 143, 
XTii. 356, 
Tiii. 22, 
Tii. 421, 
XX. 332, 
xii. 162, 
xxi. 385, 
Tiii. 167, 
xiT. 108, 
X. 49, 
xxii. 100, 
xvi. 237, 
xxiii. 305, 
XTiii. 216, 
Ti. 356, 
XT. 185, 
iii. 177, 
xxi. 443, 
xxiT. 71, 
xxii. 460, 
xxi. 29, 
T. 31, 
xiii. 51, 
xi. 188, 

xxi. 206, 

xiii. 386, 

XTii. 147, 

XTii. 81, 

iii. 136, 

iii. 229, 

iii. 1, 

xii. 471, 

xi. 40, 

XX. 124, 

xix. 195, 

xix. 27, 

xxTi. 448, 
xxii. 549, 

xvi. 458, 
XTiii. 178, 
xxiii. 538, 

xiii. Ill, 








X. 438, 

XTiii. 314, 

xxiii. 144, 

XXT. 39, 

T. 45, 

T. 153, 

T. 164, 

xii. 418, 

Brown, Basfbrd t. 
Brown, Bamham t. 

Brown, Chesley t. 

Brown, Eastern Bank t. 

Brown, Eaton t. 

Brown, HaTen t. 

Brown, Higgins t. 

Brown, Hil^me t. 

Brown, Howard t. 

Brown, Hose t. 

Brown, Locke t. 

Brown, Lnnt t. 

Brown, Manning t. 

Brown, Peavey t. 

Brown, Penobscot Boom t. 

Brown, Prescott t. 

Brown, Rawson t. 

Brown, Richardson t. 

Brown, Sibley t. 

Brown, State t. 

Brownfield, Athens t. 

Bruce, State t. 

Brunda^e, Hooper t. 

Bmnswick, French t. 

Brunswick, Turner t. 

Brunswick Hotel. Stanley t. 
Brunswick School Diftnct* 

Kincaid t. 
Bryant, Barnard t. 
Bryant, Gooch t. 
Buck, Hewett t. 
Buckfield, Fletcher t. 
Buckfield, Green t. 
Buckfield, Turner t. 
Bucknam, Blanchard t. 
Bncknam, Coffin t. 
Bucknam, Todd ▼. 
Buffum, Foster ▼. 
Buflfum, Lord t. 
BuffBee, Bank of Cumber- 
land T. 
Bullard, Porter t. 
Bumpus, Bean t. 
Burbank, Bean t. 
Burbank, Lord t. 
Burbank, Merrill t. 
Burcis, Win|{ t. 
Burley, Carlisle t. 
Burlingham, State t. 
Burnham, Cram t. 
Burnham, Dyer t. 
Burnham, Southgate t. 
Burnham, Steams t. 
Burnham, Steams t. 
Burr, Agricultural Bank y, 
Burr, Hathaway t. 
Burr, State t. 

Burrill, Kennebec Log Co. t. 
Burrill, Williams t. 
Burton, Kennard t. 
Burton, Ring t. 
Bussey, Baylies t. 
Bussey, Chamberlain t. 
Bussey, Gilmore t. 

Digitized by 




xiii. 289, 
zxii. 191, 
▼ii. 2Q6, 
xzi. 191, 
▼ii. 102, 
▼iii. 116, 
xir. 112, 
xxi. 220, 



Boiwell, Vickerie ▼. 



Botler, Chapman ▼. 



Butler, Frost ▼. 



Butler, Harding v. 

XX ri. 


Butman, Carl ▼. 



Butman, Goodhue ▼. 



Butterfield, Bailey ▼. 



fiutterfield, Nelaon ▼. 



Butters, Averj ▼. 
Butters, Avery v. 
Butters, Herrin ▼. 
Buxton, Kennebunkport ▼. 
Buxton, Ligonia v. 
Buzzell, Barley v. 
Buzzell, Quimby ▼. 
Byrnes, Hoyt y. 


xi. 463, 

iv. 475, 

XT. 340, 

XT. 428, 

xiv. 421, 

XTiii. 433, 

vi. 109, 

XX. 393, 

vii. 90, 

▼. 266, 

vi. 353, 

XV. 414, 

iii. 269, 

vii. 164, 

xxi. 492, 

xvi. 380, 

ii. 386, 

XX. 374, 

vii. 175, 

viii. 110, 

XX. 301, 

xxiv. 351, 

xii. 396, 

i. 15, 

XX. 218, 

vi. 390, 

V. 339, 

viii. 234, 

vi. 448, 

vu. 426, 

xxi. 393, 

zxii. 212, 

V. 74, 

vii. 67, 

zxv. 440, 

iv. 10, 

ui. 461, 

V. 15, 

viii. 198, 

ii. 67, 

xxvi. 453, 

xii. 282, 

vi. 142, 

vii. 44, 

viii. 9, 

vii. 377, 

vii. 122, 

xvii. 385, 

XXV. 128, 

xxii. 488, 

XXV. 126, 

Calais, Baring v. 



Calais, Gorham v. 



Caldwell, Edmond v. 



Call, Merrill v. 



Call, State v. 



Camp, French v. 



Campbell, Hilt v. 



Campbell, Wakefield ▼. 



Canaan, Fairfield v. 



Canton, Gorham v. 



Card, Howard v. 



Cargill, Sewall v. 



Carle, Berry v. 



Carle, Vance v. 



Carleton, Cragin v. 



Carleton, Tyler v. 
Carlisle, Alley v. 
Carlisle, Wallace v. 







Carlton, Tyler v. 



Carmel, Benson v. 



Carr, Fiske v. 



Carr, Leathers v. 



Carr, Sargent v. 
Carsley, Turner v. 





Carter, Quimby v. 



Carver, Adams v. 



Cary, Bradford v. 



Cary, Bradley v. 



Cary, Jones v. 



Cary, Tuttle v. 



Case, Thorn v. 



Caswell, Payson v. 



Cate, Hathorne v. 



Cayford, State v. 



Central Bank, Pierce v. 



Chadboume, Holmes v. 



Chadboume, Howard v. 



Chadboume, Howard v. 



Chadboume, Lord v. 



Chamberlain, Lord v. 



Chandler, Cummings v. 



Chandler, Melody v. 



Chandler, Morton v. 



Chandler, Morton v. 



Chandler, Morton v. 



Chandler, Thompson v. 
Chapman, Blanchard v. 





Chapman, Burnham v. 



Chapman, Call v. 



Chapman, Deering v. 



Chapman, Keene v. 



Chase, Appleton v. 
Chase, Barker v. 
Chase, Bradley v. 
Chase, Coffin v. 
Chase, Crosby v. 
Chase, Emery v. 
Chase, French v. 
Chase, Morton v. 
Chase, Spring v. 
Chase, Wilson v. 
Chesley, Sparrow v. 
Chesley, Welch v. 
Chick, Dennett v. 

Chick, Sevey v. 
Chism, Evans v. 
China, Windsor ▼. 
Churchill, Dnimmond ▼. 

Churchill, State v. 

Clark, Atwood v. 

Clark, Barker v. 

Clark, Blake v. 

Clark, Crabtree v. 

Clark, Donnell v. 

Clark, Earle v. 

Clark, Granger v. 

Clark, Hosmer v. 

Clark, Noroross v. 

Clark, Pittston v. 

Clark, Richardson v. 

Clark, Webster v. 

Clark, Wing v. 

Clements, Strout v. 

Clough, Ford v. 

Cobb, Humphreys v. 

Cobb, Lombard v. 

Cochrane, Little v. 

Codman, Dillingham ▼. 

Codman, Howe v. . 

Codman, McLellan v. 

Coffin, Deane v. 

Coffin, Smith v. 

Coffin, Sute v. 

Cogswell, Emerson v. 

Cole, Caldwell v. 

Cole, Eaton v. 

Cole, Elden v. 

Cole, Porter v. 

Cole, Williams v. 

Collins, Coffin v. 

Collins, Wiley v. 

Conant, Pierce v. 

Digitized by 


TABLE or CA8E8* 


CO —DA. 

XT. 178, Conner, Monroe t. 
Yiii. 165, Conner, Small v. 
xiT. 414, Cook, Ltthrop t. 
Tii. 181, Coolbrotb, Woodman ▼. 
It. 3SI3, Coombf, Axtell ▼. 
Ti. 89, Coombe, Dana v. 
Tii. 394, Coombf, Gage ▼. 

i. 343, Coombfl, Mil liken v. 
zz. 139, Coombs, Warren ▼. 
zz. 144, Coombs, Warren v. 
zzii. 133, Cooper, Allen t. 
Tiii. 32, Cooper, Heald v. 
ZZT. 450, Cooper, Richardson v. 

zz. 154, Cooper, Rolft t. 
zzii. S03, Cooper, Treat t. 
zriii. 127, Copeland, Cutter t. 
zvi. 314, Copeland, Hodsdon ▼. 
zv. 276, Copeland, Winslow v. 
iii. 107, Comfnrtb, Jewett y. 
ziz. 191, Cornish, Pease v. 
zi. 367, Comville, Moor ▼. 
ziii. 293, Comville, Moor v. 

z. 473, Corson, State y. 
ZY. 473, Cottle, State t. 
zzYi. 406, CoontY Commiseioners Cnm 
berland, Windham y. 
ziz. 338, Conntf Commissioners Ken- 

nelMc, Vassalborough y. 
zzi. 390, Coontj Commiseioners Ken* 

nebec, McLellan y. 

zzi. 377, Coantj Commissioners Ken< 

nebec, PettingiU y. 
ZZY. 291, County Commissioners Kenne- 
bec, Sanger y. 
ZZY. 333, County Commissioners Somer- 
set, Hoxie Y. 
zziY. 151, County Commissioners Somer< 

set, Woodman v. 
zzYi. 353, County Commissioners Waldo 

Harkness y. 
ZZYI. 491, County Commissioners York, 

Bacon y. 
ZZY. 69, County Commissioners York, 

North Berwick y. 
ZZY. 283, Cowan, Wheeler v. 
ziY. 370, Cowell, Blaisdell y. 
zzii. 347, Cowing, Dain y. 
Yi. 395, Cox, Canal Bank y. 
Yi. 404, Coz, Deering y. 
ZZYI. 335, Coz, Whitman y. 
ZYii. 266, Coy, HoYey y. 

i. 167, Crabtree, Warren y. 
zz. 378, Craig, Stockwell v. 
ZY. 79, Cram, Famham y. 
ziii. 255, Cram, Freeman y. 
Y. 417, Cram, Templeton y. 













172, Crane, Chapman v. 
22, Crane, Churchill v. 
214, Crawford, Abbott v. 
245, Crawford, Nickerson v. 
558, Creamer, Seiders v. 

9, Cresey, Willis v. 
239, Crocker, Dennett v. 
29, Crocker, Winslow v. 
537, Crockett, Brown v. 
412, Crockett, Merrill v. 
307, Crofton, McLellan v. 
274, Crombie, Rogers v. 
250, Crommett, Cool v. 
276, Crosby, French v. 
448, Crosby, Hathaway y. 
261, Crosby, Pearson v. 
191, Crosby, Strafford Bank ▼. 
259, Cross, Reed t. 
171, Crowell, State v. 
113, Cumberland, Blanchard v. 
Yi. 21, Cumberland, North Yar- 
mouth v. 
zziv. 566, Cumberland Bank, McLel- 
lan Y. 
zzvi. 406, Cumberland Connty Commis- 
sioners, Windham v. 
85, Cummings, Bolster v. 
11, Cummings, Hubbard v. 
55, Cummings, Potter v. 
82, Cummincs, Read v. 
506, Cunningham, Patterson v. 
117, Cunningham, Ulmer v. 
168, Currier, Parker v. 
43, Currier, State v. 
51 , Curtis, Brewer v. 
356, Curtis, Hathorn v. 
36, Curtis, Medomak Bank v. 
272, Curtis, Merrill v. 
110, Curtis, Winthrop v. 
297, Curtis, Winthrop v. 
228, Curtis, Worth v. 
218, Cushing, Hale v. 
313, Cushing, Oakes v. 
480, Cushing, Robinson y. 
94, Cushman, Pejepscot Proprie- 
tors V. 
zz. 353, Cutler mill dam Co., Parker y. 
zzii. 105, Cutler, Pope v. 
zvi. 349, Cutler, Stote v. 
vi. 240, Cutts, Foz v. 
zl 440, Cutts, Goddard v, 
vii. 186, Cutto, Read v. 
iv. 31, Cutts, Witham v. 
vii. 261, Cutts, Winsor v. 
zviii. 204, CutU, York ManufiMSturing 
Co. v. 




















zzii. 30, Daggett, Brown v. 
zi. 309, Daggett, Kinseli v. 
vi. 476| Dallfaeim, Groton v. 


v. 217, Dalton, Parsonsfield y. 
ZYui. 240, DamariscotU Bank, Bryant v. 
zv. 431, Damariscotta Bank, Con- 
verse v. 

Digitized by 




DA.— DY. 
































. 352, 



























































' X. 


























Damon, State v. 

Dana, Charles v. 

Daniels, Owen v. 

Danville, New Glooceater v. 

Darlinf , Green v. 

Darling, Green v. 

Darling, Houston v. 

Darling, Todd v. 

Davis, Belknap v. 

Davis, Bradley v. 

Davis, Bradlej v. 

Davis, Davenport v. 

Davis, £merv v. 

Davis, Haughton v. 

Davis, Kennebeo purchase v. 

Davis, Kennebee proprie- 
tors V. 

Davis, Kimball v. 

Davis, Osgood v. 

Davis, Sawtel v. 

Davis, State v. 

Davis, Weston v. 

Davis, Wing v. 

Dawley, Femald v. 

Day, Bay ley v. 

Day, Clay v. 

Day, Hooper v. 

Day, Taylor v. 

Deane, Hovey v. 

Deane, Hovey v. 

Dearborn, Belgrade v. 

Dearborn, State v. 

Dearing, Curtis v. 

Deering, Frost v. 

Deer Isle, Bangor v. 

Deer Isle, Dover v. 

Deer Isle, St. George v. 

Delesdernier, Carle v. 

Delesdemier, Jenney v. 

Delesdernier, Pierce v. 

Delesdemier, State v. 
Delesdemier, Waite v. 

Demerritt, Matthews v. 

Dennett, Cummings v. 

Dennett, Ingalls v. 

Dennett, Plummer v. 

Dennis, Hatch v. 

Dennis, Ward v. 

Deanison, Ackley v. 

Derby, Griffin v. 

Dickinson, White v. 

Dickey, Ellingwood v. 

I^Dgl^y, Greene v. 
Dingley, Hawes v. 

Dingley, McKenney v. 

Dingley, Seaver v. 
Dinsmore, Harris v. 

Dinsmore, Hilton v. 

Dinsmore, Maine Charity 
School V. 

xviii. 380, 

iii. 157, 

xii. 190, 

X. 156, 

xviii. 382, 

xvii. 358, 

xxiv. 20, 

xxvi. 185, 

X. 434, 

iv. 333, 

XXV. 176, 

ixiv. 104, 

iii. 183, 

xviii. 137, 

XX. 317, 

xvii. 193, 

xiii. 466, 

xU. 441, 

xvii. 19, 

xix. 110, 

xxiv. 211, 

xvi. 426, 

xxiv. 123, 

xiv. 298, 

XV. 112, 

xxvi. 76, 

ix. 79, 

xxi. 499, 

vi. 263, 

xvi. 51, 

i. 27, 

V. 319, 

XXV. 185, 

xiv. 180, 

V. 281, 

V. 268, 

xxiv. 77, 

XV. 292, 

xxi. 86, 

xxiv. 128, 

xi. 174, 

xiv. 290, 

i. 300, 

V. 9, 

xxiii. 483, 

ii. 255, 

xvi. 308, 

vii. 134, 

xii. 19, 

xxi. Ill, 

xix. 58, 

xvii. 96, 

iii. 441, 

ii. 165, 

iv. 52, 

XXV. 468, 

u. 213, 

xvi. 475, 

xiiiw- 41, 

Dixfield, Foster v. 
Dockendorff, Winthrop v. 
Dodge, Crockett v. 
Dod^, Hobart v. 
Dolbier, Ripley v. 
Dole, Carr v. 
Dole, Hussey V. 
Donnell, Sprout v. 
Dore, Tranon v. 
Dorr, Waterhouse v. 
Dorr, Weston v. 
Dorr, Wolfe v. 
Dorr, Wyman v. 
Dorrance, Rea v. 
Douglass, Perkins v. 
Douglss, State v. 
Dover, Chamberlain v. 
Dover, Garland v. 
Dow, Dennett v. 
Dow, Dennett v. 
Dow, Fales v. 
Dow, Gammon v. 
Dow, Rollins V. 
Dow, Whittier v. 
Doyle, Russell v. 
Dresser, Hutchins v. 
Drew, Gleason v. 
Drew, Harlow v. 
Drew, Sayward v. 
Drew, Wellington v. 
Drink water, Hermon v. 
Drinkwater, Webster v. 
Drammond, Grover v. 
Dunlap, Newhall v. 
Dunlap, O'Brien v. 
Dunlap, Perkins v. 
Dunlap, State v. 
Dunn, Allen v. 
Dunn, Goodenow v. 
Dunn, Wing v. 
Dunning, Purrington v. 
Dunning, Stanw<XKl v. 
Dur^n, Clement v. 
Durcin, Clement v. 
Durham, Strout v. 
Dutton, Frothingham v. 
Dtttton, Smith v. 
Dwinel, Chase v. 
Dyer, Baoon v. 
D^er, Blaochard v. 
Dyer, Fickett v. 
Dyer, Hanson v. 
Dyer, Hill v. 
Dyerj Mariner v. 
Dyer, Meserve v. 
Dyer, Noyes v. 
Dyer, Pike v. 
Dyer, Rollins v. 
Dyer, Tyler v. 

Digitized by 













































OW CAfKf. 

£A— FO. 


Earl, Corner ▼. 

XTiii. 79, 

£arl, Judking t. 

xiT. 375, 

Elastem RiTer Co., Hancock 


▼i. 961, 

dsstmmn, Farnur t. 

ii. 5, 

Eafltman, Fmrrar t. 

i. 991, 

daotman, Norton r. 

Tii. 901, 

dnntport, Lubec t. 

X. 306, 

Eaton, Deshon v. 

xi. 967, 

Eaton, Herrin t. 

XTi. 393, 

Elden, RuMell t. 

i. 189, 

Eldrid^, Jordan t. 

xiii. 965, 

Ellingwood, Preccott r. 

Elliot, Hunt T. 

Tii. 41, 

Elliot, O'Brien t. 

xxi. 519, 

Ellin, Fisher t. 

iT. 374, 

Elwell, Arnold t. 

Tiii. 330, 

Elwell, Gore t. 

xxTi. 133, 

Elwell, Meaerre t. 

xix. 373, 

Emerson, DaTis v. 

xxT. 66, 

Emenon, Eaton t. 

xiU. 391, 

Emery, Coomba r. 


Emery, GoTrer t. 
Fmery, Hooper ▼. 
Emery, Ridfon r. 
Emery, Sanfbrd t. 
Emery, Sayward t. 
Emery, Staples t. 
Erakine, White ^. 
Estes, Andrews t. 
Estes, Jennings t. 
Estes, Lyman t. 
Etna Insnranoe Compaay, 

Leadbetter t. 
Eostis, Smith t. 
Eostis, Spencer t. 
ETsns, Bisbee y. 
ETans, Lithgow t. 
ETans, WhMler r. 
ETerett, Daggett t. 
ETcrett, Gammon ▼. 
Exeter, Corinna ▼. 



xxiT. 363, 

iii. 436, 

Ti. 405, 

XTiii. 23, 

XTiii. 64, 

XT. 479, 

xu. 328, 


Ti. 226, 

X. 414, 

xix. 2T8, 

T. 379, 

Tii. 370, 

iu. 450, 

IT. 382, 

ii. 339, 

T. 333, 


r. 496, 

xSfL 436, 

X. 168, 

XXX, 34, 

!▼. 471, 

XlT- 3^» 

Ti. 35, 

tL 303, 

xir. 224, 

ix. 12, 

Ti. 141. 

yvi, 132, 

xii. 241, 

▼. 69, 

rrii. 420, 

ix. 21, 

Fairbanks, Larrabee t. 



Fairfield, Hampden y. 



Falen, Greenwood y. 



Falen, Martin y. 



FalmoKtb, Bradbury y. 



Falmouth, Wilton y. 



Farley, Carr y. 



Farley, Harkness y. 



Farley, Jones y. 



Famnwortb, Baldwin y. 



Fameworth, Dodge y. 



Farrar, Redington y. 



Farwell, Johnson y. 



Farwell, Searsmont y. 



Favor, Foxcroft Academy y. 






Fellowa, State y. 



Femald, Holmes y. 



Femald, Linscott y. 



Famald, Pierre y. 



Famald, Filsbory y. 





Fickett, ChUd y. 



Field, Kendall y. 



Fiel^t Richardson y. 



Fiel<l, Richardson y. 



Fiel^ State y. 



Fillebrown, Bailey t. 



Fish, Benson y. 



FUh, Chase y. 



Fish, Wheeler y. 



Fisher, Grayes v. 



Fiske, Bri^ v. 



Ftfke, Dwmel y. 



Fisk, Emerson y. 
Fiske, Lanj| y. 
Fiske, Lombard y. 
Fiske, Robinson y. 
Fiske, Wallingford y. 
Fitch, Wiggin y. 
Fitts, Alden y. 
FUgg, Parker y. 
Flsie, Doe y. 
Fletcher, Moore y. 
Flint, Lowell y. 
Flintl Lowell y. 
Fly, Boynton y. 
Fly, Clinton y. 
Flye, State y. 
Folger, Howard t. 
Folier, Robinson y. 
Foliansbee, Smith y. 
Folsom, State y. 
Ford, Crafts y. 
Ford, Neil y. 
Foss, Brown y. 
Foss, Cleayes y. 
Foss, Joy y. 
Foss, Lamb y. 
Foss, Peters y. 
Foss, Stacy y. 
Foss, StSTcns y. 
Foss, Thornton y. 
Foster, Hodgdon y. 
Foster, Porter y. 
Foster, Stratton y. 
Foster, Thurston y. 
Fowler, Hinkley y. 

Digitized by 




FO. — GO. 

















































Fowler, Lambard v. 
Fowler, Morrison v. 
Fowler, Ware v. 
Fox, Aldrich v. 
Fox, Bodfish V. 
Fox, Holmes v. 
Fox, Portltnd Bank v. 
Fox, Portland Man. Co. v. 
Fox, White v. 
Foxcroft, Clark v. 
FoxcroA, Clark v. ' 
Foxcroft, Harding v. 
Foxcroft, Walker v. 
Frankfort, Page v. 
Frankfort, Titus v. 
Frankfort Bank, Reed v. 
Franklin Man. Co., Lamb v. 
Freeman, Blake v. 
Freeman, Decker v. 
Freeman, Downing v. 
Freeman, Lewis v. 
Freeman, Richardson v. 
Freeman, Woodman v. 
Freeport, Leeds v. 















109, Freete, Oriental Bank ▼. 

182, Freese, Rowell v. 

185, Freese, WhitmaB v. 

212, Freese, Whitman v. 

182, French, Bowes v. 

221, French, Clark v. 

21, French, Davis v. 

204, French, Htetson v. 

115, French, Tuckerman t. 

Ill, French, Wilkins v. 

417, Friend, Phillips v. 

308, Frontier Bank, Wheeler t. 

100, Frothiogham, Sturdivant v. 

457, Frye, Smith v. 

405, Fryeburg, State v. 

364, Fuller, Gould v. 

277, Fuller, Harrington v. 

12], Fuller, HiUv. 

162, Fuller, Ludwig v. 

229, Fullerton, Staniford v. 

405, Furbish, Chandler v. 

225, Furlong, State v. 

69, Furlong, State v. 






































































Galvin. Kendall v. 



Gammon, Brown v. 



Garcelon. Pray v. 



Gardiner, Cool v. 



Gardner, Hains v. 



Gardiner. Hallowell v. 



Gardiner, Manson v. 



Garey, Tripp v. 



Garland, March v. 



Garland, Spencer v. 



Garland, Young v. 



Garvin, Chase v. 



Gatchell, Merrill v. 



Gates, Tuttle v. 



Gay, Brown v. 



Gay, Gushing v. 
Gellerson, Clark v. 





Georges Insurance Co., Robin- 



son V. 



Georgia Lumber Co., Mar- 



wick V. 



Gerrish, Gardiner v. * 



Gerrish, Gowen v. 



Getchell, Crocker v. 



Getchell, Hobbs v. 



Getchell, Stevens v. 



Getchell, Waterston v. 



Gibson, Pease v. 



Gibson, Waterhouse v. 



Gibson, Waterhouse v. 



Gilchrist, Stimpson v. 



Gillis, Ewell V. 



Gillis, Wilson v. 



Gilman, Chase v. 



Oilman, Denny v. 



Gilman, Famham v. 



Gilman, Farrar v. 
Gilman, Hilton v. 
Gilman, Robinson v. 
Gilman, Russ v. 
Gilman, Wadleigh v. 
Gilman, Warren v. 
Gilman, Warren v. 
Gilman. Williams v. 
Gilman, Williamsburg t. 
Gilmore. Alden v. 
Gilmore, Brown v. 
Gilmore. Bussey v. 
Gilpatrick. Whipple v. 
Given. Marr v. 
Gleason. Crowell v. 
Goddard. Frost v. 
Goddard. Maddox v. 
Godft^y, Haley v. 
Godfrey. Rowe v. 
Godfrey. State v. 
Godfrey, State v. 
Godf^y, Steams v. 
Godfrey, Thorndike v. 
Gooch. Stephenson v. 
Gooch, Strout v. 
Goodhue. Fales v. 
Goodinc, Foedick v. 
Goodrich, Snow v. 
Goodridge, Chandler v. 
Goodridge, Johnson v. 
Goodwin, Abbott v. 
Goodwin. Emery v. 
Goodwin, Emery v. 
Goodwin, Piper v. 
Goodwin. Smith v. 
Goodwin, Wentworth v. 

Digitized by 


TA»LB or C 




































Gowwotk^ OrowB t. 



<SordoB, Cutis T. 

CkirdoB, Lindaej t. 



Govfaam, Knight t. 



Gorham, WejmoQth t. 



Oould, Adams T. 



Gtmld^. fiarbank v. 



Ckxild, Ross T. 



Gould, Traip t. 



Gowen, Davis y. 



Gowen, Davis t. 



Goipraa, Emery t. 



GowsD, Storer t. 



CSowen, Witham t. 



Gower, Dale r. 



GraffiuD, Whittier ▼. 



Grmnite Choreh, Whitman t. 



Grrant, Bnssej r. 



Grant, £llis t. 



Grant, Nason ▼. 



Graot, Patrick t. 



Grant, Sute t. 



Gray, Barstow t. 



Gray, Dnnkwater t. 



Gray, Shaw ▼. 



Gray, Standish y. 



Gray, Upton y. 
Gray, Williams y. 




Great Falls Manufacturing Co. 



Cowell v. 

Great Works M. and M. Co., 

State v. 
Greely, HatkeU y. 
Greelej, Stardivant y. 
Greeljr, Taylor v. 
Greely, Waldo Bank v. 
Green, Bean y 
Greene, Davis ▼. 
Greene, Dyer v. 
Greene, Fogg v. 
Green, Haskell y. 
Greene, Jewett v. 
Greene, Kinsman v. 
Green, Loomis v. 
Green, Swett v. 
Green, Walker v. 
Greene, Wayne y. 
Green, Weld y. 
Greenbnsh, Ballard v. 
Greenbosh, Libbey v. 
Green leaf, Brag^ v. 
Gregory, Hendnck v. 
Griffin, Fairbrother v. 
Griffin, Moore v. 
Grindal, Winslow v. 
Grindle, French v. 
Griswold, Porter v. 
Grover, Cutler v. 
Grover, Peterson v. 





















































. 391, 


. 391, 


. 40, 


. 451, 

Tf ack, Chalmers v. 



Haines, Foster v. 



Haines, Spring v. 



Hale, Scott v. 



Haley, Baker v. 



Haley, Skofieid v. 



Haley, True v. 



Hall, Bailey V. 



Hall, Bunker v. 



Hall, Eustis V. 



Hall, Furbish v. 



Hall, Gault v. 



Hall, Jepson v. 



Hall, Locke v. 






Hall, Parsons v. 



Hall, Smith v. 



Hall, Smith v. 



Hall, Snow v. 



Hall, State v. 



Hall, Studley v. 



Hallett, Thompson v. 



Hallowell, Davenport v. 



Hallowell, Goodwin v. 



Ham, Childs v. 



Ham, State v. 



Hammatt, Sawyer v. 



Hammatt^ Sawyer v. 



Hamilton, Hovey v. 



Hamilton, Rowe v. 
Hammond, Porter v. 
Hampden, Jackson v. 
Hampden, Jackson v. 
Hampden, Merrill v. 
Hammond, State v. 
Handley, Howe v. 
Handy, State v. 
Handy, Vose v. 
Hanly, Flitner r* 
Hanley, Flitner v. 
Hannaford, Peables v. 
Hanscomb, Field v. 
Hanson, Clapp y. 
Hanson, Hams y. 
Hanson, Hilton v. 
Hanson, Sawyer v* 
Hanson, Wilson v. 
Hapgood, Marks v. 
Harding, Fox v. 
Harding, State v. 
Harding, Thomas v. 
Harding, True v. 
Hardy, Blood v. 
Hardy, Buck v. 
Hardy, DoUoff v. 
Hardy, Green v. 
Harlow, Crosby v. 
Harlow, State v. 

Digitized by 


or CAlBt. 

HA — HO. 














ziii. 361, HviBOB, Bariaf t. 

ziT. 871, Htrmon, Emenon t. 

ZTiii. 415, HanDoay, Milo t. 

Tii. 91, HannoDj, Veazj t. 

ziT. 32, Hurimui, Greene t. 

zzi. 583, Hame, Bangor and PiiMtaq«ia 
R. R. Co. T. 

146, Harris, Bartok t. 
298, Harris, DescadiUas t. 
393, Harris, Fullertoa t. 
190, Harrison, Raymond t. 
420, Harrod, Chamberlain t. 

147, HartweU, Tnekerman t. 

357, Hanrey, HerTey t, 
80, HarTey, Hobbs t. 
97, Harrey, Spaulding t. 

131, Harwood, Wilton T. 

474, Haskell, Boom Proprietors t. 

308, Haskell, Cobb T. 

180, Haskell, Green ▼. 

339, Hsskell, Hnnt t. 

177, Haskell, Porter t. 
391, Haskins, Hatch t. 
263, Haskins, TebbeH t. 
411, Haleh, Chnrehill T. 
389, Hatch, Wheeler t. 
251, Hathaway, Boothby t. 
345, Hathaway, HaTen t. 

85, Hathawar, Peol t. 

164, HaTen, Drown t. 

212, HaTener, Thayer ▼. 

155, Hawkee, Eastport t. 

347, Hayden, Brackett t. 

152, Hayden, Dole t. 

76, Hayes, Donn t. 

234, Hayford, Paul T. 

105, Haynes, Bradford t. 

178, Haynes, Parhn t. 
362, Haynes, Rogers t. 
128, Haynes, Smith t. 

11, Haywood, Morrill t. 

471, Hazeldne, Usher t. 

104, Hazen, Thompson t. 

34, Head, Jameson t. 

32, Heagan, Bacbelder t. 

329, Heagan, Johnson t. 

381, HeaJd, Gardiner Man. Co. t. 

26, Heald, Getchell, t. 

91, Heald, Varrill T. 

329, Heald, Wyman t. 

158, Healy, MNCobb T. 

452, Healey, Stetson ▼. 

247, Heard, Deering t. 

296, Heard, Robinson t. 

266, Hebron, Fayette t. 

238, Heminway, Whittier t. 

531, Henry, White T. 

358, Herbert, Woodard T. 
118, Hermon, Abbott t. 
262, Herrick, Bean t. 
121, Herrick, Coffin t. 

87, Herrick, Gorham t. 

354, Herrick, Methodist Chapel t. 

338, Herrin, Eddy t. 
































IT. 407, 

zz. 449, 

zzi. 38, 

ziz. 281, 

zz. 359, 

ziT. 309, 

ZTiii. 21, 

ZT. 73, 

ZT. 20, 

zzii. 408, 

ZTii. 287, 

ZTiii. 281, 

zziii. 442, 

ZTi. 215, 

ZiT. 417, 

zi. 435, 

zzi. 529, 

ZTiii. 189, 

zz. 372, 

ziT. 127, 

IT. 41, 

zzi. 481, 

ZTi. 329, 

ZTi. 155, 

ziii. 151, 

ZTiii. 247, 

ziz. 423, 

Tiu. 383, 

Tin. 326, 

zzTi. 200, 

IT. 431, 

zU. 385, 

T. 272, 

Ti. 289, 

ZTiii. 320, 

Tiii, 274, 

ziT. 449, 

ZTi. 164, 

zzii. 321, 

ZZT. 241, 

ziT. 453, 

ZTi. 219, 

ii. 835, 

ui. 103, 

ZTii. 267, 

ZiT. 66, 

ziz. 155, 

zzu. 564, 

Ti. 145, 

ii. 194, 

zii. 157, 

iT. 168, 

zzii. 180, 

Ti. 160, 

zziii. 136, 

xiT. 478, 

T. 174, 

iT. 372, 

ii. 337, 

zz. 159, 

zi. 170, 

ziii. 25, 

Ti. 479, 

zziii. 217, 

Heraey, Emwij t. 
Heney, HopkiBs t. 
HerTey, Maine Bank t. 
Hewett, Ayeis t.| 
Heywood, Norton t, 
Higgins, Qiiinby t. 
Higgins, Whitcomb t. 
Higginson, Banister ▼. 
Hignt, Dore t. 
Hight, Spring t. 
Hight, Weston t. 
Uiffht, Weston t. 
HiRM>rne, Garland t* 
Hill, Adams t. 
HiU, Blake t. 
Hill, DaTlin t. 
Hill, Fogg T. 
Hill, Frost T. 
Hill, Hapijood t. 
Hill, Harriman ▼. 
Hill, Porter t. 
HUl, Walker t. 
Hill, Wheeler t. 
Hills, Casco Bank ▼. 
Hills, Dodge T. 
Hills, Eastman t. 
Hills, Hill T. 
Hills, OTerloek t. 
Hills, Ulmer t. 
Hilton, Wise t. 
Hinckley, Bangor Hoqm ▼. 
Hinckley, Bnllard t. 
Hinckley, Bullard t. 
Hinkley, Frye t. 
Hinckley, Rodick t. 
Hiscock, Smith t. 
Hobart, Hill t. 
Hobson, Marr t. 
Hodgdon, FallerT. 
Hodgdon, Gardiner Bank t. 
Hodgdon, Heald t. 
Hodgdon, Jewett t. 
Hodgdon, Jewett t. 
Hodgdon, Lewis t. 
Hodges, Heaton t. 
Hodgskins, State t. 
Hozan, Whitmore t. 
Holley, Battles t. 
Hullis, Sanfbrd t. 
Holman, White t. 
Holmes, Varrell t. 
Holt, Morse t. 
Holt, Pickering t. 
Homans, Hilton t. 
Homans, Page t. 
Hook, Bangor Bank t. 
Hook, Russell t. 
Hook, Wyman t. 
Hooper, Felch t. 
Hooper, Porter t. 
Hooper, Porter t. 
Hope, Warren t. 
Hopkins, Hemck ▼. 

Digitized by 


or OAUB*. 


Ha— JO. 

xni. 968, Hopkte, Stwyer ▼. 

xir. 341, Hopkiitton, I>eiiiMtt ▼. 

if. 88, Horwini, Leigk r. 

xxT. 23, flortoo, AppTeton t. 

xziii. 290, Hoskins, MeKeoknie ▼. 

xriii. 245, If oadlette, Bowmmn t. 

z. 399, £[ofidl«tt6, Brown t. 

ziz. 368, Hoaghton, Keene ▼. 

z. 420, Houghton, MattlMWf ▼. 

zi. 377, Hoaghton, Matthews t. 

zzi. 501, Hoolton, Bank of Oldtown ▼. 

zri. 413, Houston, Darling t. 

zziii. 48d, Howv, Bomham t. 

ziii. 397, Howe, Botler v. 

xxiii. 560, Howe, Clark t. 

zIt. 250, Hoipre, Gammon t. 

zz. 164, How^e, Goodnow r. 

xxii. 560, Howe, Handley t. 

Xx/f. 126, How, Merrill y. 

n*. 20^ Howard, Blake t. 

xxw. 304, Hoifrard, Nickeraon ▼. 

▼i. 45^ Howard, Osgood r. 

ziii. 26S, Howard, Vose t. 

xiii. 154, Howea, Bugnon t. 
xii- 45d, Hoyt, Byrnes t. 

xi. 66, Hojrt, Pethrgrore ▼. 
zxiir. 118, Hojt, 8anDom ▼. 
▼iii. ai20, Hnbbard, Steams t. 
X. 71 , Uubbs, Smith y. 
!▼. 345, Hndaoo, Gilbert T. 
xx»^- 464, Huff, Sawyer ▼. 
iii. 433, Hughes, Taylor ▼. 

xzi. 84, Ilall,eitalaT. 

zxii. 391, Horapbrey, Allen ▼. 

zziT. 513, Humphrey, Marston r. 

yi. 379, Humphrers, Purinton r. 

viii. 19, Hoanewell, Patten ▼. 

iT. 376, Hunnewell, Phillips t. 

ii. 321, Hannewell, Twombly ▼. 

zz. 391, Hunnewell, Wave t. 

zzT. 419, Hunt, Burditt t. 

zzi. 455, Hunt, Greely t. 

zzir. 18, Honter, Gilpatriok t. 

xri. 9, Hunter, Lunt v. 

zzir. 39, Hunter, Tilton t. 

zrii. 74, Huntington, Goodwin ▼. 

ZT. 350, Huntington, Howe t. 

zil. 407, Hussey, Butman ▼. 

ZT. 337, Hnssey, Cutts ▼. 

zriii. 349, Hussey, Newali t. 

zvii. 874, Hussey, P^ne v. 

zzi. 69, Huston, Field t. 

ziT. 390, Hutchins, Abbott ▼. 

zziii. 565, Hutehins, Gamage t. 

z. 145, Hutobins, Gould t. 

zziii. 372, Hutchins, Lovejoy ▼. 

zz. 77, Hutebings, Mason v. 

ziz. 855, Hutchins, Small t. 

zxii. 357, Hutchinson, Dorranoe ▼. 

zzi. 339, Hutchinson, Joeselyn ▼. 

zxv. 349, Hutchinson, PnUen r. 

ziz. 359, Hutchinson, Springer t. 

li. 196, Hyde, Portland Bank v. 

zzii. 318, Hyde, Stone t. 


IT. 134, 
Ti. 48, 
ziu. 384, 
ix. 60, 
xi. 83, 
xxTi. 338, 

llsley, Crbflon y. 
lisle Y, CroiloD t. 
Ingails, Smith t. 
Ingalls, Treat t. 
Ingersoll, Clapp t. 
Inman, Shimmm t. 

ziz. 138, Institution fbr SaTings, lla- 

kin T. 
xzi. 450, Irish, Blake t. 
ZZTJ. 444, Irish, Kimball t. 
zx. 443, Islttsborough, Warren t. 






























Jack, Mansfield r. 
Jackman, Fish r. 
Jackson, Green r^ 
Jackson, Inman r. 
Jackson, Ware r. 
Jameson, Ellis r. 
' Jaqoes, Nelson r. 
Jarris, PInmmer r. 
Jay, Bean r. 
Jay, Farmington r. 
Jefierds, Bradburr r. 
Jefferson, Blakesburg r. 
Jellison, Haddocks r. 
Jenaess, Gore r. 





























Jennings, Harmon r. 
Jewell, Hale r. 
Jewell, Lloyd r. 
Jewell, Perley r. 
Jewett, Adams r. 
Jewett, Getchell r. 
Jewett, Reed r. 
Jewett, Thayer r. 
Johnson, Brannin r. 
Johnson, Bryant r. 
Johnson, Frankfort Bank r. 
Johnson, Frankfort Bank r. 
Johnson, Gage r. 
Johnson, Hasty r. 

Digitized by 



xxiii. 188, 
XIV. 240, 

zxiv. 3231, 

xxiii. 335, 

xix. 146, 

i. 230, 

xxi. 426, 




— LA. 

JohiMOB, Herrick t. 



JoBM, Lor4 ▼. 

Munon, Lowell ▼. 



Jones, Marshall v. 

Johiifon, Reed t. 



Jones, Osgood v. 

Johnson, Roop t. 



Jones, Sherbnnie v 

Johnson, Rowe r. 



Jones, Smith v. 

Johnson, State ▼. 



Jordan, Rundlett v. 

Johnson, Tioonic Bank 




Jose, Moulton v. 

Jones, UaskeU t. 



Joyce, Rogers v. 


xiv. 409, 

'i. 226, 

iv. 277, 

iv. 164, 

xxiii. 69, 

iii. 474, 

xU. 355, 

xxvi. 411, 

xxvi. 33, 

XX. 381, 

xiv. 396, 

xxiv. 158, 

X. 266, 

xui. 136, 

i. 117, 

xii. 513, 

xii. 381, 

xiv. 83, 

xvii. 196, 

xxi. 390, 

xxi. 377, 

XXV. 291, 

xix. 338, 

viii. 200, 
iv. 47, 

xix. 267, 

xxi. 430, 

xviii. 349, 

xxvi. 97, 

Kaler, Kohn v. 

xxiv. 425, 

Kanavan, State v. 

xi 455, 

Kavanagh, Moonej v. 

XV. 116, 

Keating, Boodj v. 

vi. 171, 

Keene, Davis v. 

xiv. 9, 

Keen, Morrison v. 

xvi. 146, 

Keene, Perrin v. 

xvii. 313, 

Keen, Smith v. 

i. 322, 

Keene, State v. 

ix. 54, 

Keene, Titcomb v. 

XXV. 493, 

Keith, Brown v. 

xi. 155, 

Keith, Wright v. 

i. 158, 

Keliock, Dodge v. 

V. 482, 

Kellock, Dodge v. 

i. 297, 

Kelley, Ricker v. 

xvii. 301, 

Kelley, Winslow v. 

ixiii. 35, 

Kendrick, Dutton Fands v. 

XIX. 375, 

Kendrick, Higgins v. 
Kennebec, Philbrook v. 

xxii. 400, 

XU. 278, 

Kennebec Co. Commissioners, 

xxi. 521, 

McLellan v. 

V. 254, 

Kennebec Co. Commissioners, 

XIX. 424, 

Pettengill v. 

vi. 460, 

Kennebec Co. Commissioners, 

i. 17, 

Sanger v. 
Kennebec Co. Commissioners, 

vii. 439, 

xxiv. 332, 

Vassalborough v. 

xxvi. 224, 

Kennebunk, Wells v. 

viii. 71, 

Kennebunkport, Parsons- 

xix. 449, 

field V. 

xxvi. 128, 

Kennedy, Babb v. 

iii. 445, 

Kennedy, Wing v. 
Kent, Mudgett v. 

xxu. 494, 

X. 274, 

Kidder, Eustis v. 

Kilby, Goodenow v. 
Kilmarnock, Milo v. 
Kimball, Allen v. 
Kimball, Dall v. 
Kimball, Hatch v. 
KimbaU, Hatch v. 
Kimball, Littlefield v. 
Kimball, Morrell v. 
Kimball, Pierce v. 
Kimball, Winslow v. 
Kinoaid, Allen v. 
King, Cutta v. 
King, Cutta v. 
King, Porter v. 
King, Savage v. 
King, Wingate v. 
Kingfield, Phillips v. 
Kingsbury, Hayes, v. 
Kingsley, Herrick v. 
Kinsman, Williams v. 
Kitterv, State v. 
Kittridge, Sutherland v. 
Kneeland, Dennett v. 
Knight, Lunt v. 
Knight, Thompson v. 
Knighto, Campbell v. 
Knights, Campbell v. 
Knowles, State v. 
Knowlton, Hill v. 
Knowlton, Low v. 
Knox, Haskell v. 
Knox, Parks v. 
Kuhn, Schwartz v. 


U. 275, 

xxiii. 384, 
xii. 312, 
xiii. 288, 
xxi. 308, 

xxvi. 258, 
xvi. 224, 
iv. 159, 
xxi. 472, 
viii. 442, 
xxi. 468, 




tors V. 



Lakin, Emerson v. 



Lamb, Copp v. 



Lamb, Copp v. 
Lambard, tiomans v. 





Lamos, State v. 



Lamson, Penobscot Boom v. 



Lancaster, Miller v. 



Lancey, Bangor v. 



Lancey, Judkins v. 



Lancey, Lord v. 



Lane, Allard v. 
Lane, Bean v. 
Lane, Burgess v. 
Lane, Hastings v. 
Lane, Jenness v. 
Lane, McArthur v. 
Lane, Tucker v. 
Lane, Tuttle v. 
Langdon, Pickering v. 
Lai-rabee, Towle v. 
Lathrop, Little v. 
Laughton, Shaw v. 

Digitized by 




LE. — MO. 


XX vi. 































45, Lpeadbatter, Angiiita ▼• 

351 y LteaYitt, Brown v. 

378, L^avitt, Biusey v. 

4^1, L*ebanoD, San&rd t. 

409« Leeds, Fi^eUe v. 

9Sy Leffrow, Steveiui ▼. 

383, L^ighton, Braclcett y. 
2S, L.eisner, Call v. 

185, Inland, Littlefield r. 

135, Inland, Ulmer v. 

440, L.eoiiard, Pierce r. 

116, Liermond, Kiilta T. 

377, Lermood, Knoz v. 

964, Lewis, Fernald t. 

968, Lewis, Conner ▼. 

452;, Lewis, Gilraan v. 

361 , Lewis, Pace ▼. 

140, Lewiston, Durham y. 

39, Libbj, Cochrane v. 

448^ Libbj, Foster ▼. 

55, Libbej, Thing t. 

137, Lincoln, BeeDiam t. 

122, Lincoln, Howard y. 

116, Lincoln, Jewett y. 

384, Lincolnyille, Camden y. 
439, Lincolnville, Fletcher y. 
315, Lindsey, Otis y. 

453, Linscott, Dickey y. 

234, Linscott, Fernald y. 

186, Linscott, Thompson y. 

434, Lisbon, Richmond y. 

201, Lisbon BridM, Watson y. 

28, Litchfield, Bronswick y. 

196, Litchfield, Jefferaon y. 

63, Litchfield, Warren y. 

405, Little, Bishop y. 

362, Little, Bishop y. 

239, Little, Butler y. 

261, Little, Cobb y. 

374, Little, Eyeleth y. 

376, Little, Grosyenor y. 

225, Little, Halsted y. 

14, Little, Harper v. 

162, Little, Longlejr y. 

350, Little, Palister y. 

148, Little, Perkins y. 

97, Little, Perley y. 

495, Little, Quint y. 

231, Little, Stinchfield y. 

yii. S90, 
zzi. 418, 
zu. 148, 
ziii. 233, 
zyiii. 400, 
ziy. 356, 
zy. 333, 
zyii. 40, 
zz. 72, 
zy. 458, 
zyi. 140, 
zzyi. 306, 
ziii. 146, 
zzi. 96, 
ziy. 444, 
zziii. 39, 
zzy. 51, 
zyiii. 351, 
z. 161, 
zyiii. 511, 
i. 163, 
zzyi. 202, 
i. 64, 
zyiii. 260, 
zyi. 18, 
yiii. 405, 
zii. 201, 
zyiii. 244, 
zy. 48, 
iy. 439, 
zz. 369, 
zi. 426, 
zz. 178, 
iii. 52, 
zzi. 251, 
iii. 373, 
U. 149, 
U. 367, 
yiii. 128, 
zyi. 416, 
ziz. 72, 
iy. 503, 
zi. 151, 
ziy. 254, 
ziz. 115, 
yi. 412, 
ziz. 70, 
zziy. 147, 

Littlefield, Allen y. 

Littlefield, Dudlej y. 

Littlefield, Emerson y. 

Littlefield, Emmons y. 

Littlefield, Hughes y. 

Linlefield, Kimball y. 

Littlefield, Lewis y. 

Littlefield, Lewis y. 

Lock A Sluice Co., Hancock y. 

Lombard, Emerson y. 

Lombard, Haskins y. 

Longfellow, Cushing y. 

Longfellow, Whitefield y. 

Longlej, Marean y. 

Longley, If sine Stace Co. y. 

Longlev Stajte Co., Longley y. 

Lone Wharf, Deering y. 

Lord, Emmons y. 

Lord, Legro y. 

Lord, Parsonsfield y. 

Lord, Seaward y. 

Loring, Farrar y. 

Loring, Peterson y. 

Lothrop, Cook y. 

Lothrop, Wheeler y. 

Loyejoj, Lawson y. 

Levering, Hewitt y. 

Low, Kelly y. 

Low, Picurd y. 

Low, State y. 

Lowe, Balkam y. 

Lowder, SuUiyan y. 

Lowell, Baileyville y. 

Lowell, Codman y. 

Lowell, Gordon y. 

Lowell, Green y. 

Lowell, Kennebec Propr's y. 

Luce, Bussey y. 

Lumbert, Merritt y. 

Lumbert, Waldo Bank t. 

Lunt, Boody v. 

Lunt, Cobb y. 

Lunt, McLellan y. 

Lunt, McLellan y. 

Lunt, Pride y. 

Lunt, State y. 

Lunt, Stevens y. 

Lyford, Smith v. 


xii. 308f 

XX. 465, 

xxir. 139, 

XXV. 490, 

xxvi. 374, 

iU. 27, 

X. 127, 

▼i. 364, 

i. 102, 

▼U. 467, 

McAlliater, Boies y. 

McAllister, French y. 

McAllister, State V. 

McAllister, State y. 

McAllister, State y. 

Mc Arthur, Davis y. 

Mc Arthur, Phil^ot y. 

McCann, Schillinger y. 
McClinch, Baldwin y. * 
McCrate, O'Dee y. 

iy. 421, 

yiii. 213, 

zzi. 550, 

zzii. 402, 

zviii. 120, 

zziy. 311, 

iz. 131, 

zy. 201, 

ziy. 14, 

iy. 50B, 

McCulloch, Walker y. 
McDonald, Fuller y. 
McDonald, Morrison y. 
McDonald, Wescott y. 
McDonald, Williams y. 
McDufiT, Hall y. 
McGlathry, Cole y. 
Mclntire, Linscott y. 
Mclntire, Stevens v. 
McKeen, Brunswick v. 

Digitized by 












































































































McKeen, Lane v. 
McKennej, Boody v. 
McKusick, Frothingbam v. 
McKasick, Peaae v. 
McLellan, Bradford v. 
McLellan, Muieey v. 
McLellan, Boott v. 
McLellan, Thayer v. 
McLellan, Weymouth v. 
McMahon, Bangor Bridge v. 
McMahon, Treat v. 
Macomber, Parlin v. 
Maddoz, Webster v. 
Madifon, Ellia v. 
Madifon, Havden v. 
Magoun, Bath Bridge v. 
Mahan, Thomas v. 
Blain, Libby v. 

Maine M. F. Ins. Co. Jones v. 
Maine M. F. Ins. Co. Lane v. 
Mains, Knicht v. 
Makin, Portland Savings Insti- 
tution V. 
Mallett, Randall v. 
Mallett, Webber v. 
Mallett, Williams College v. 
Mallett, Williams College v. 
Manly, Vose v. 
Mann, White v. 
Mansfield, Bryant v. 
Manson, Leighton v. 
Mkrble head, Bristol v. 
March, Darling v. 
Marden, Norton v. 
Mariner's Church, Miller v. 
Marks, Middle Bridge v. 
- Marks, Stockwell v. 
Marrett, Towie v. 
Marshall, Crane v. 
Marshall, Cushman v. 
Marshall, Low v. 
Marston, Roberts v. 
Martin, Barter v. 
Martin, Burrill v. 
Martin, Hackett ▼. 
Martin, Ingraham v. 
Marwick, Sherwood v. 
Mason, Colbom v. 
Mason, Crehore v. 
Mason, Gore v. 
Mason, Sawyer v. 
Mayo, Bean v. 
Mayo, Bean v. 
Mayo, Potter v. 
Mayo, Potter v. 
Meader, Heard v. 
Meady, Brown v. 
Medez, Aiken v. 
Megquier, Little v. 
Meat^uier, Phillips v. 
Melvin, Bamford v. 
Merriam, Huse v. 
Merrick, Crowell v. 
Merrick, State v. 



















































































Merrill, CoDey v. 
Merrill, Farrar v. 
Merrill, Gilbert v. 
Merrill, Gilbert v. 
Merrill, Harmon v. 
Merrill, How v. 
Merrill, Kelley v. 
Merrill, Levy v. 
Merrill, Lisbon v. 
Merrill, Parker v. 
Merrill, Richardson v. 
Merrill, Tibbetts v. 
Merrill, Waite v. 
Merrill, Walker v. 
Merrill, Winslow v. 
Merrill, Wyer v. 
Miibum School District, 

Hill V. 
Miller, Shed v. 
Milliken, Belknap v. 
Milliken, Witherell v. 
Mills, State v. 
Mills, Thayer v. 
Minchin, Thayer v. 
Miner, Howard v* 
Mitchell, Abbott v. 
Mitchell, Goddard v. 
Mitchell, Howe V. 
Mitchell, Low v. 
Mitchell, Memam v. 
Mitchell, Oakes v. 
Montville, Rowell v. 
Moody, Colby v. 
Moody, Grossman v. 
Moody, Hutchinson v. 
Moody, Kimball v. 
Moody, Paul v. 
Moody, Thomesv. 
Moody, Thornton v. 
Mooers, Rollins v. 
Moore, Adams v. 
Moore, Bryant v. 
Moore, Davis v. 
Moor, Famham v. 
Moore, Folsom v. 
Moore, Gower v. 
Moore, Herrick v! 
Moore, Oakes v. 
Moor, Smith v. 
Moor, Tioonic Bridge v. 
Morrell, KimbaU v. 
Morse, Frontier Bank v. 
Morse, Gardiner v. 
Morse, Green v. 
Morse, Stevens v. 
Morse, Stevens v. 
Morton, Chandler v. 
Moscow, Lowell v. 
Mosely, Washburn v. 
Mosher, Winslow v. 
Moulton, DeWitt v. 
Moulton, Otis v. 
Moulton, Willard v. 
Mountfbrt, Brackett v. 

Digitized by 



LB or ejJHBS^r 
MO. ^ OX. 

xii. ra. 

Moantibrtf Braokett y. 

XT. 100, 

XTiii. wi. 

Mower, Fitti v. 

six. 20, 

XX. 160, 

Moymrjy DeletderoMr v. 

Yiu. 400, 

xiii. 423, 

Madfott, PreMOtI r. 

X. 297, 

XTi. 336, 

Madfott, RolliDC t. 

iv. 88, 

XX. 257, 

Bf anroe, Lomn r. 
Bf anroo, Whitnej t. 

iii. 305, 

xix. 42, 

T. 450, 

ii. 336, 

B€amj, Cobura t. 

xu. 223, 


Mnmj, Stat* t. 
MoMej, Caaco Bank v. 
MuMey, FoUom t. 
Moaaey, Folaom t. 
MusMy, Goodwin ▼. 
Mutsey, Tompaon r. 
Muzzj, Lothrop t. 
My rick, Cottrill v. 






























Nmah, Buekiiain ▼. 
Nash, ifOballiater ▼. 
Naeon, Beal v. 
Naaon, Gerrish ▼. 
Nason, Horn v. 
Really, Murray v. 
NeTara, Dennett v. 
Mevena, Foxcroft ▼. 
Nevius, McKenzie r. 
New Glouceater, Portland ▼. 
New Portland, Gould v. 
New Vineyard, New Portland ▼ 
Newbegin, State ▼. 
Newfield, Moore ▼. 
Newfield, Waterborouf h ▼. 
Newhall, Varsaa ▼. 
Nichola, Moody ▼. 
Nichola, Pejepaeot Propria ▼. 
Nichola, Pejepioot Propr's ▼. 
Nichola, Stone ▼. 
Nickala, Howe v. 
Nilea, Crardner ▼. 
Nilea, Kennedy r. 
Noble, Archer t. 
Noble, Dockray ▼. 
Noble, Plummer ▼. 
Noble, State v. 
Nobleborough, Vamer ▼. 

i. 89, Norcroea, Brackets ▼. 

XT. 468, Norris, Betta t. 

xxi. 314, Norria, Betti t. 

ii. 179, North, Westbrook t. 

XTii. 113, Nortbey, Tarr t. 

iii. 85, Northy, Woodbury t. 

It. 459, North Yarmouth, Cumber- 
land T. 

T. 66, North Yarmouth, Lawiaton t. 

XTii. 416, Norton, Barker t. 

xi. 350, Norton, Barney t. 

xix. 412, Norton, Colbi^ t. 

XTii. 307, Norton, Dolbier ▼. 

XTii. 381, Norton, Goodman t. 

XT. a37, Norton, Knifht T. 

Tiii. 61, Norton, Loring t. 

X. 252, Norton, Pearce t. 

Ti. 229, Norton, Peaae t. 

xix. 274, Norton, Rackleff ▼. 

XX. 83, Norton, Small wood t. 
xi. 208, Nott, State t. 

i. 292, Nowell, Gowen t. 

ii. 13, Nowell, Gowen t. 

XT. 86, Nowell, Lane t. 

Ti. 239, NoweU, Paul t. 

ii. 22, Noyea, Porter t. 
xix. 16, Nutter, Blake t. 
T. 140, Nutting, Gardiner t. 




























Oakei, Thompson t. 
0*Brien, Famham t. 





Ocean Ins. Co., Polleys t. 



Ocean Ins. Co., Warren t. 



Odom, McKim t. 



0*Donnell, Loring t. 



Ogier, Eaton v. 
O^Kyle, RcmickT. 





Omaley, Nelson t. 



Ordway, Foster t. 



Orono, Draper t. 



Orono, Treat t. 



Osborn, Maine Bank t. 



Osborne, Waite t. 



Osgood, Brown t. 
Osgood, Carey t. 
Osgood, Evans t. 
Osgood, Manuf. Bank T. 
Osgood, Means t. 
Osgood, Mitchell t. 
Osgood, Parkman t. 
Osgood, Parsonage Fand T. 
Osgood, Saco t. 
Osgood, Stone t. 
Otis, Ware t. 
Otisfield Parish, Holden T. 
Owen, Stevens v. 
Oxford, Joy v. 

Digitized by 


Pit — ro. 


sir. 94, Padelford, Lant ▼. 
xi. 381, ?•§•, Baker t. 
aiu. 469, ?««•> Bowey v. 
xiT. 132, Page, Baieey t. 
jttiT. 73, Pago, Cooper T. 
xxTi. 119, Page, Lothrop t. 
XYiii. 140, Page,McKee«T. 
xxT. 496, Page, Morte ▼. 
u. 378, Page, Stubba ▼. 
XTiU. 5164, Paine, CUpp ▼. 
sxiU. 496, Paine, Fairfield t. 

xii. Ill, Paine, Proat v. 
xrii. 819, Paine, Hamilton t. 
i. 84, Paine, UlmerT. 
iii. 6, Paliiter, Little t. 
It. 809, Palieter, LitUe t. 
six. 303, Palmer, Barry t. 
zi. 414, Palmer, Blood t. 
XXT. 341, Palmer, Cliaae t. 
ii. 321, Parcher, State t. 
T. 430, Paria, Dover t. 
ixiu. 666, Paria, TneU t. 

ix. 137, Parker, Doekkam ▼. 
xxiY. 289, Parker, Jenneaa t. 
zziy. 89, Parker, Merrill t. 
xxri. 214, Parker, Sootburd t. 
xxiii. 170, Parker, Veaxie r. 
zriii. 407, Parkman, Merrick y. 
zii. 137, Parkman, Spring v. 
▼. 81, Parka, l>eail>om ▼. ^ 
z. 441, Parka, Levant School Fond t. 
zzii. 395, Parlin, Blake v. 
Tii. 82, Parlin, Gonid ▼. 
Tu. 80, Parlin, Kidder T. 
It. 486, Paraona, Anderaon ▼. 
zzii. 433, Paraonafield, Comiah t. 
zzv. 18, Patrick, LongfeUow V. 
zi. 179, Patrick, Swett v. 
zii. 9, Patrick, Swett t. 
zii. 243, Patridge, Jewett t. 
ZT. 173, Patten, Blake ▼. 
zz. 28, Patten, Hontreaa ▼. 
zriii. 231, Patten, Nichok y. 
ii. 368, Patten, Stetaon y. 
ziii. 329, Patten, Thomaa v. 
ZYiii. 42, Patten, Weeks y. 
Yiii. 81, Patteraoa, fiamea y. 
ZYiii. 30, Paul, Bradford y. 
iii. 260, Paul, Freeman y. 
zziL 600, Peabody, Clark y. 
ZYiii. 344, Pearson, Crommett y. 
ziz. 184, Peaae, Comiab y, 
ziY. 349, Peaae, Lombard y. 
zziii. 339, Pendleton, Crocker y. 
ZIZ. 167, Pennell, Sawyer t. 
zyU. 409, Penny, Hill y. 
, ii. 1, Penobscpt, York y. 
zziY. 185, People's Bank, Smith y. 
zz. 235, Peiham, Lowney t. 

ziii. 87, Perkins, Bartlett y. 

iii. 399, Perkins, Cbadwiek r: 
zzi. 166, Perkina, Foleom y. 
ZYiii. 292, Perkina, Freeman's Bank t. 
ZYii. 462, Perkina, Leach y. 

ii. 400, Perkins, Witham y. 

i. 6, Parley, Babb y. 
Yii. 404, Parley, Farrar y. 

Y. 369, Parley, Stanley y. 
ZY. 470, Periey, White y. 
ZYii. 176, Perry, Clark y. 
ZYi. 21, Perry, Ridley y. 
ZYii. 413, Perry, Spencer Y. 

i. 376, Petera, Croaa y. 
Yii. 126, Pettengill, Campbell Y. 

Y. 147, PhUbrick, White y. 
Yii. 106, Pickesng, Knoz y. 
ziz. 214, Pickering, Langdon y. 
ziii. 337, Pickering, Thomaa y. 

zi. 213, Pierce, Gordon y. 
ZYi. 411, Pierce, Jonea Y. 
xzY. 233, Pierce, Lend y. 

Y. 324, Pierce, Poland t. 
zii. 316, Pierce, Vickerie y. 

Yi. 9, Pierce, Warren y. 
xxiY. 669, Pierre, Mnasey y. 
ZY. 268, Pike, Banks Y. 

zi. 9, Pike, Buck y. 

iii. 438, Pike, Harlow y. 
zziY. 427, Pike, Holden y. 

ii. 8, Pike, Mazwdl y. 

zz. 169, Pike, Sawtell y. 

ii. 387, Pike, Stowell y. 
zu. 303, Pike, Ware y. 
zziY. 458, Pillabary, Chick y. 
i. 271, Pilabnry, Shapleigh y. 
ziz. 420, Pindar, Fowles y. 

iu. 463, Pittaton, Belmont y. 
ziY. 20, Plantation No. 4, Knowlton y. 

iii. 88, Plommer, Alna y. 

Iy. 258, Plvmmer, Alna y. 
ZYii. 14, Plummer, Dow y. 

Yii. 447, Plummer, Erskine y. 

Yii. 464, Plummer, Kent y. 

iii. 73, Plummer, Marr y. 

ziz. 22, Plummer, RcYnolda y. 
ZYI. 249, Pond, Arnold y. 
xziii. 669, Poor, Lord y. 
ziii. 377, Pope, Cutler y. 
zzii. 371, Porter, Hayes y. 

yii. 337, Porter, Juad y. 

ii. 119, Porter, Rawaon Y. 

zi. 271, Portland, Froat y. 

iy. 77, Portland, Hale y. 
zzYi. 37, Portland, Littlefield y. 
zziii. 410, Portland, Windham y. 
ZYiii. 36, Portland Maine Railway, 

Drinkwater y. 
Yiu. 207, Pcittend Stage Co., Allen ▼. 

Digitized by 



po — so* 

zl. 218, 
zxiU. 472, 

ui. 138, 
i. 255, 
ii. 196, 
T. 35S, 

xriii. 256, 

zrii. 997, 

XT. 14, 

Potter, "ntoombT. 
Pownal, Freepoit t. 
Pownal, Bute t. 
Praj, Allen v. 
Pray, Erving v. 
Prar, Witkam v. 
Preble, Kimball t. 
Preble, Philbriek t. 
PreeeoCt, Smitb ▼. 
PreeCon, Norloa t. 

Ti. 408, 

T. 964, 

Ti. 19, 

ZZTl. 18, 

xxT. 515, 

XT. 495, 
xxii. 363, 
XTiii. 87, 

XT. 397, 

Prinee, Cumberland t. 
Prince, Winelow t. 
Proctor, Campbell t. 
Proctor, Loring t. 
Protoction Invurance Coaiptnj, 

Tomer t. 
Purington, PhilliM t, 
Putnam, Goddard t. 
Putney, Smitb t. 
Patney, Steele t. ' 

xii. 11, Qniney, Greenleaf t. 


1 It. 497, Qniney, Small t. 


xiT. 995, Rand, Farmer t. 

XTi. 453, Rand, Fanaer t. 

XT. 332, Randall, Uavding t. 

xi. 103, Rankina, Campbell t. 

xxi. 446, Rankine, Freeman t. 

Til. 22, Read, Naaon t. 

xix. 363, Read, Porter t. 

ii. 109, Read, Sturgis t. 

xtL 369, Reding, Reedy t. 

IX. 85, Reding, Lowell t, 
xii. 478, Reding, Moafaier t. 
XT. 153, Reding, Munroe t. 

xxiii. 289, Redman, Lyman t. 

xiii. 357, Reed, Chamberlain t. 

xii. 196, Reed, CogiweU t. 

XTii. 178, Reed, Dnnton t. 

xii. 515, Reed, Howe t. 

tL 222, Reed, Lamell t. 

XTii. 169, Reed, Preble ▼. 

xziL 28, Reed, Rich t. 

XTiii. 257, Reed, Regeii t. 

xi. 296, Reed,UlmerT. 

Ti. 220, Reed, Wilkine t. 

X. 140, Reanck, Hubbard t. 

xrr. 89, Reynolds, Falea t. 

zx. 45, Reyaolda, Garland T. 

iii. 303, Reyaolda, Keitb t. 

i. 409, Reynolds, Tribou t. 

xiii. 196, Rioe, Bradley t. 

xiT. 419, Riee, Eastman t. 

XTU. 187, Ribe, UiUs t. 

TiiL 157, Rice, Johnson T. 

xxl. 53, Rioe, Morse t. 

XT. 263, Rice, Thorn t. 

xi. 49, Richards, Johnson t. 

X. 429, Richards, Russell t. 
xi. 371, Richards, Russell t. 

ZTJ. 200, Richards, Saiith t. 

xiii. 4301, Richards, Tbomdike t. 

ir, 897, Riehardsoo, Goto t. 

j^ 79, Riehanlson, Lincoln and 
KflHMbec Attk t. 

xxIt. 82, Richardson, McCobb ▼. 

xiii. 89, Richardson, McLeUaa t. 

a. 115, Richardson^Stats t. 

Ti. 1 12, Richmond, Bewdoinha» t. 

Ti. 268, Richer, Butler t. 

u. 72, Ricker, Heath t. 

u. 408, Ricker, Heath t. 

T. 458, Ridkm, SewaU t. 

ix. 51, Riggs, Steward t. 

X. 467, Rigaa, Steward t. 

xix. 137, Ripray, Hight t. 

Ti. 442, Ripley, Parsonage Fmid t. 

Tui. 109, Roberts, Barker t. 

▼. 419, Roberta, Crane t. 

XX. 307, Rohertt, Danibrtfa t. 

xi. 489, Roberts, Gallagher t. 

T. 441, Roberts, Harwood t. 

xxTi. 263, Roberta, Stale t. 

xi. 135, Robie, Moe h e c t. 

xxIt. 274, Robinson, Agnenltnral 

T. 197, Robinson, Dingley t. 

XT. 167, Robinson, Jordan t. 

XTi. 857, Robinson, Lowell t. 

ii. 197, Robinson, Ryder t. 

xxiii. 70, Robtnsoii, SiUey t. 

i. 186, Rogers, Bailey t. 

u. 143, Rogers, Clark t. 

ZT. 67, Rogers, Flint t. 

i. 328, Rogers, Monell t. 

ii. 301, Rogers, State t. 

ii. 303, Rogers, State t. 

xiii. 315, Roaers, Traitoa t. 

XTiii. 405, RoHins, Darling t. 

ziii. 209, Rollina, Freeman's Bank t. 

zxi. 379, RoUtns, French t. 

xxiii. 196, Rollins, Sawtelle t. 

ii. 55, Roaie, Todd t. 

T. 443, Ross, Crockett t. 

iii. 956, Ross, Low t. 

T. 400, Ross, Paine t. 

xi. 89, Rewe,AdaMST. 

Digitized by 



xvi. 38, 

ii. 130, 

xvii. 137, 

ix. 62, 

xiii. 299, 

xii. 235, 

i. 334, 

xvi. 171, 


r OAtEt. 



Rowe, Keniston t. 

xvi. 30, 

Rowte, Frost v. 

xiv. 432, 

Ragglet, Groton t. 

XX. 421, 

Ruggles, Lombard ▼. 

iii. 227, 

Ramford, New Portland 


vii. 273, 

Runnels, Baker t. 

XV. 440, 

Russ, Hale ▼. 

iv. 101, 

Rass, Hammatt ▼. 

Rass, Prentiss v. 
Russ, Shaw t. 
Russ, Wilson v. 
Russell, Colbj v. 
Russell, Spring v. 
Rust, Bailej v. 


vii. 270, Saeo, Biddeford v. 

V. 143, Saco, Hallowell v. 

i. 262, Saco Meeting House, Soam- 
mon V. 

xiv. 475, Bager, Cordis v. 

xxvi. 171, St. Croix Man. Co., Atkinson V 

xxiii. 284, St.CroixMan.Co.Beckwith v. 

xxiii. 280, St. Croix Man. Co., Commer 

mercial Bank v. 

xxiii. 267, St. Croix Man. Co., Jarvis v. 

xvii. 117, St. George, Thomaston v. 

XV. 408, Sally, Riggs v. 

xi. 109, Salmond, Belftst Academy v. 

xxiii. 388, Sampson, Robinson v. 

xxvi. 11, Sampson, Robinson T. 

viii. 288, Sanborn, Walker v. 

viii. 310, h'anbom, Wbitmore ▼. 

xxiii. 269, Sargent, Bucbee v. 

xxiii. 527, Saigent, Osbom v. 

xxiii. 326, Sargent, Rand v. 

viii. 423, Saunders, Kavanagh v. 

xvi. 92, Saunders, Rogers v. 

xvii. 444, Savage, Kellar v. 

XX. 199, Savage, Kellar v. 

xvi. 72, Savage, Leavitt v. 

X. 455, Savage, Norton v 

xi. 429, Savage, Wyatt v. 

xix. 128, Savings Institution, Makin v. 

xxiii. 350, Savings Institution, Makin v. 

vi. 361, Sawin, Knight v. 

iv. 191, Sawtel, Deering v. 

iii. 447, Sawtell, Palmer v. 

xxii. 244, Sawyer, Dana v. 

vii. 366, Sawyer, Dnnkwater v. 

xii. 424, Sawyer, Hammatt v. 

iv. 429, Sawyer, Scamman v. 

Iv. 62, Sawyer, Vallance v. 

ix. 15, Sawyer, Woodsnm v. 

V. 227, Sayward, Allen v. 

i. 366, Sayward, Dunning v. 

T. 465, Sayward, Gilpatrick v. 

xxii. 230, Sayward, M'Guire v. 

V. 504, Sayward, Smith v. 

xxi. 106, Scammon, Longfellow t. 

xii. 24, Soribner, Eveletb v. 

xxiii. 435, Seal, Harris v. 

vii. 237, Seaver, Hayes v. 

iv. 542, Seaver, Titcomb v. 

ii. 139, Seavey, Henderson v. 

xvi. 212, Seavey, Hesseltine v. 

viii. 138, Seavey, Simpson v. 

vi. 118, Seavey^ State ▼. 

xi. 284, 

XX. 341, 

iu. 223, 

xiv. 439, 

iv. 283, 

XXV. 90, 

XX. 9, 

xix. 288, 

xvi. 456, 

xiv. 295, 

X. 135, 

vii. 236, 

xiv. 58, 

ui. 372, 

V. 59, 

i. 339, 

xii. 454, 

XV. 242, 

xxiii. 343, 

ix. 47, 

xix. 204, 

xviii. 304, 

iii. 202, 

xxii. 569, 

XXV. 371, 

xxi. 260, 

xiv. 48, 

xxi. 258, 

XX. 34, 

ii. 93, 

XV. 466, 

vii. 150, 

xviii. 368, 

XXV. 474, 

XV. 429, 

xviii. 225, 

xxi. 185, 

xxi. 305, 





xiv. 364, 

xii. 261, 

viii. 148, 

XX. 269, 

xvi. 58, 

XX. 314, 

XXV. 453, 

xxiv. 52, 

xxvi. 136, 

XXV. 366, 




Saavey, Thayer v. 
Seaville, Mount Desert y. 
Sebec, Sumner v. 
Sedgley, Howard v. 
Sedgley, Purinton v. 
Begar, Woodman v. 
Severance, Uaher v. 
Sewall, CargiU v. 
Sewall, Farmer v. 
Bewail, Moody v. 
Shapleigh, Batchelder v. 
Shapleigh, Frost v. 
Shaw, Boyd v. 
Shaw, Chapman v. 
Shaw, Chapman v. 
Shaw, Elwell v. 
Shaw, Galvin v. 
Shaw, Lowell v. 
Shaw, Rich v. 
Shaw, Sawyer v. 
Shaw, Tibbets v. 
Shaw, Woodward v. 
Shed, Howes v. 
Sheldon, Jackson v. 
Shepherd, EUiot v. 
Sherburne, Bean v. 
Sherburne, Cram v. 
Sherburne, Porter v. 
Sherburne, Vickery v. 
Sherman, Emery v. 
Shorey, Macomber v. 
Short, Dennett v. 
Shurtleff, State v. 
Sibley, McAllister v. 
Sidlinger, Bomeman v. 
Sidlinger, Bomeman v. 
Sidlinger, Borneman v. 
Sidney, Freeport v. 
Silloway, Knox v. 
Simpson, Bean v. 
Simpson, Darling v. 
Simpson, Given v. 
Simpson, Junkins v. 
Simpson, Pease v. 
Simpson, Saigent v. 
Sinclair, Phillips v. 
Skowhegan, Bloomield ▼. 
Sleeper, Head v. 
Small, Fiske v. 
Small, Franklin Bank v. 
Small, Franklin Bank t. 
Small, Globe Bank v. 

• Digitized by 




8M — 8T. 














































xxi. 14, 

xxi. 20, 

xvi. 893, 

xiii. 310, 

ii. 341, 

V. 407, 

XX. Id, 

XXV. 40», 

Small, Ha3mef v. 

Small, Mead v. 

Small, Pillflbury v. 

Small, Rundlett v. 

Small, State t. 

Smiley, Stark v. 

Smith, Sailey v. 

Smith, Beckwith v. 

Smith, Bradbury v. 

Smith, Brewer v. 

Smith, Comstock v. 

Smith, Davis v. 

Smith, Dwinal v. 

Smith, Fifield v. 

Smith, Gase v. 

Smith, Hale v. 

Smith, Hawes v. 

Smith, Homeg v. 

Smith, Homei v. 

Smith, Kennebunkport v. 

Smith, Littlefield v. 

Smith, McDonald v. 

Smith, Maine Bank v. 

Smith, Marshall v. 

Smith, Moore v. 

Smith, Pace v. 

Smith, PoUeys v. 

Smith, Potter v. 

Smith, Robie v. 

Smith, Spanlding v. 

Smith, State v. 

Smith, State v. 

Smith, Tapley v. 

Smith, Taylor v. 

Smith, Tucker v. 

Smith, Tukey v. 

Smith, Wadsworth v. 

Smith, Wadsworth v. 

Smith, Waterhouse v. 

Smith, Wingate v. 

Smyth, Homes v. 

Smyth, Pillsbury v. 

Smyth, Southard v. 

Snow, Crosby r. 

Snow, Marble v. 

Snow, Nourse v. 

Snow, State v. 

Snow, Stioson v. 

Snow, Thompson v. 

Snowman, Melius v. 

Solon, Crumpton v. 

Somerset, Jewett v. 

Somerset, New Vineyard v. 

Somerset, Woodman v. 

Sonaerset Qo. Coin., Hoxie v 

Somerset Co. Commissioners, 

Woodman v. 
Somerville, State v. 
Somerville, State v. 
Soper, State v, 
Soule, Libby v. 
Soule, Norton v. 
Soule, Sute v, 
Soule, State v. 
Southard, Sanbora v. 

xxvi. 494, 

xi. 341, 

xii. 238, 

xvii. 303, 

xvii. 239, 

xiii. 187, 

xiv. 417, 

xvii. 123, 

xi. 354, 

xviii. 324, 

xii. 487, 

xxii. 34, 

XX. 431, 

iii. 77, 

xvii. 226, 

xvii. 281, 

xix. 344, 

vi. 470, 

vii. 241, 

zxii. 495, 

xxi. 130, 

xiv. 407, 

xxi. 58, 

vi. 154, 

xiT. 198, 

xviii. 296, 

xxi. 512, 

xix. 219, 

xvi. 252, 

viii. 173, 

XX. 145, 

XV. 443, 

xvi. 394, 

xiii. 371, 

XV. 129, 

viii. 365, 

xvi. 124, 

xviii. 428, 

xvii. 244, 

xxiv. 520, 

xxvi. 484, 

xi. 128, 

xiv. 472, 

xiv. 205, 

xxi. 457, 

xix. 92, 

xix. 154, 

xxii. 252, 

xxiv. 534, 

xiv. 133, 

X. 27, 

xxii. 331, 

XX. 98, 

xiv. 312, 

V. 390, 

xxi. 195, 

xxiii. 140, 

X. 224, 

xii. 183, 

xxi. 402, 

xvii. 154, 

xxvi. 78, 

viii. 228, 

xxii. 450, 

XXV. 440, 

Soutbfate, Milliken v. 
Southwick, China v. 
Southwick, China v. 
Southwick, Hilton v. 

Pfi/iuliIIiig, Paliiier v, 
t-f"'?ir, B^rry v, 
^fi-'rir, Fuller V. 
f^pfnr, Stfideoipfirger v. 
Spt^nrm, 11q(^|] v 

SfmjtlVirdi BupkisjHirt V. 
Sjirrtgiie^ Billiiigion V. 
Spnigup^ I{a[)Iey v. 
Sprii^io, Kfmn v. 
^pr.'igLrtj, QuifiliY v. 
SpnigTif*, Rfir kUiy V. 
Sptugue^ Rnckley V. 
^pmgue^ ^$timptllon v. 
i**pniig, BrJnJev v* 
Hpnnft Burn ham v. 
Springn Hiinji£f ly v. 
Springer, {fnrdiyg V, 
Spring^t^ld, Grirlum v. 
??ta< kj^uk, Farrar v. 
>'tjndisht Cobb v. 
StatiltJVi Fiurbankm v. 
Stanley, French v. 
Staples, Hobbs v. 
Staples, Legro v. 
Staples, Lewis v. 
Starrett, Patten v. 
Starrett, Warren Academy v. 
Stearns, Whitney v. 
Stephenson, Gooch v. 
Stephenson, Gooch v. 
Stetson, Day v. 
Stetson, Gilman v. 
Stetson, Gilman v. 
Stetson, Odlin v. 
Stevens, Austin v. 
Stevens, Butler v. 
Stevens, Chase v. 
Stevens, Cobb v. 
Stevens, Cox v. 
Stevens, Fiske v. 
Stevens, Gower v. 
Stevens, Leighton v. 
Stevens, Leighton v, 
Stevens, Lunt v. 
Stevens, Soper v. 
Stevens, Thompson v. 
Stevens, Varney v. 
Steward, Lane y. 
Stewart, Fops v, 
Stickney, Foss y. 
Stimpson, Tbomaaton Bank v. 
Stinson, Berry v. 
Stinson, Hathorne v. 
Stinson, Hathorne v. 
Stinson, Pray v. 
Stinson, State v. 
Stoneham, Millett v. 
Storer, Hacker v. 
Straw, Chadbourne v. 
Strickland, Pierca v. 


Digitized by 



TABLE or OAfSt. 

BT. — TE. 





























Strickland, Pierce t. 



Strickland, Treat v. 



Strong, State t. 



Stront, Codman t. 



Strout, Poland v. 



Stroat, Wolcott v. 



Stuart, Comingi t. 



Stuart, Elliot v. 



Stoart, State t. 



Stuart, Weiton t. 



StubiM, George v. 



Sturdivant, Brock ▼. 



Sturdirant, Clapp t. 



Sturdirant, French t. 



Stnrdifant, Nojet v. 



Sturdivant, Potter v. 



Sturdivant, Spear t. 



Sturdirant, State t. 

StordiTant, State t. 
Swann, Barrett t. 
Swann, Daj v. 
Swann, Doak t. 
"Sweotaer, Gilbert r. 
Sweetaer, Sturdivant ▼. 
Swett, Anderson t. 
Swett, Freeman t. 
Swett, Robison t. 
Swett, Robinson t. 
Sylvester, Duncan t. 
Sylvester, Duncan v. 
Sylvester, Duncan v. 
Sylvester, Duncan v. 
Sylvester, Jordan v. 
SyWester, If orrell v. 
Symonds, Jordan v. 






















> XV. 







XX vi. 










Taber, Rollins v. 

, !▼■ 


Tallman, Houdlette v. 



Tarboz, Esmond v. 



Tarboz, Winslow v. 



Taunton, Greene v. 



Taylor, Bradbury v. 



Taylor, Emerson v. 



Taylor, Pierce v. 



Taylor, Thompson v. 



Temple, State v. 



Tenney, Clough v. 



Thatcher, Riggs v. 



Thatcher, Warren v. 



Thayer, Cate v. 



Thayer, Johnson v. 



Thing, Hall v. 



Thomas, Carter v. 



Thomas, Ferguson v. 



Thomas, Greene v. 



Thomas, Irving v. 



Thomas, Titcomb v. 



Thomas, True v. 



Thomas, Weeks v. 



Thomaston Bank, Snow v. 





nison V. 



Thompson, Campbell t. 



Thompson, Carter v. 



Thompson, Davis v. 



Thompson, Donnell v. 



Thompson, Galvin v. 





Thompson, Howe v. 



Thompson, Little v. 



Thompson, Luques v. 



Thompson, Morton v. 



Thompson, Rider v. 



Thomdike, Barrett v. 



Thomdike, Smith v. 



Thomdike, Unity v. 



Thnrlo, Cutler v. 



Thurston, Greeley v. 
Tibbets, Bowes v. 
Tibbetts, Brinley v. 
Tebbetts, Drinkwater v. 
Tibbetts, Stone v. 
Tiffany, Kennebec Puchaae v. 
Tilson, Stone v. 
Tilton. Hobart v. 
Tilton, Q^incy v. 
Tilton, Smith v. 
Titcomb, Potter v. 
Titcomb, Potter v. 
Titcomb, Potter v. 
Titcomb, Potter v. 
Titcomb, Potter v. 
Titcomb, Potter v. 
Titcomb, Potter v. 
Todd, Shiriey v. 
Tole, Cotter v. 
Tole, Cutter v. 
Tomer, Mnrch v. 
Tonthaker, Bumham v. 
Towle, Emerson v. 
Towle, Moody v. 
Towle, Tibbetts T. 
Tozier, Gregory v. 
Trafton, Fling v. 
Trafton, McDonald v. 
Trafton, Whiting v. 
Trafton, Woodman v. 
Treadwell, Fowles v. 
Treadwell, Low v. 
Treat, Bangor Bank T. 
Treat, Curtis v. 
Treat, Gnuiite Bank v. 
Treat, Penobscot v. 
Trevett, Chick v. 
Trickey, Smith v. 
Tripp, Wise v. 
Troy, Estee v. 
True, Dow v. 

Digitized by 


TABLE or CAtmt. 


TR. — WA. 





























True, GowtUr. 
True, Valestiae t. 
Tmitt, Row« T. 
TniBd J, WiwMMt r. 
Tucker, Bryant ▼. 
Tucker, Burnham t. 
Tucker, Foster v. 
Tucker, Gordon t. 
Tucker, Lawrence t. 
Tucker, Paine t. 
Tuckerman, Kennebec 

Tufts, Butler t. 
Turner, Augusta ▼. 
Turner, Bethum t. 





Turner, Dearkom t. 



Turner, Gfimes ▼. 



Turner, Hill t. 



Turner, Howard ▼. 



Turner, Kennebec Bank t. 



Turner, McLelian v. 



Turner, Peru v. 



Turner, Williaois t. 



Tuttle, Corson t. 



Tattle, Pool ▼. 



Tuttle, Thrasher t. 



Twonbly, Barrett t. 



Twombly, Eniery t. 



Tyler, Carleton ▼. 



trimer, Murra; 

. VBb^ uimer, Jnurray t. 

i. 3b4, Uniof Wharf, Gerrish t. 

I zii. 150, U. 8. Ins. Co. Thornton t. 
I ir. 387, Upton, King v. 


ZT. 36, 

ziu. 412, 

zzii. 401, 

zziT. 551, 

Tii. 158, 

ziii. 93, 

iii. 233, 

T. 396, 

zzT. 337, 

ZZIT. 286, 

ZZT. 359, 

Talentine, Norton t. 



Valentine, Pickard t. 



Valentine, Woodman t. 



Valentine, Woodman t. 



Vance, Hume t. 



Vargas, Newhall t. 



Varrell, Hill t. 



Vassalborough, Richmond t. 



Vaughan, Sawyer t. 



Veazie, Boynton t. 



Veazie, Brown t. 



Veazie, Gilman t. 
Veazie, Hersey t. 
Veazie, Stetson t. 
Veazie, State t. 
Veazie, Williams t. 
Vienna, Augusta t. 
Vinal, Emery T. 
VinalbaTen,Thomaston t. 
Virgin, Fogg t. 
Vose, Freeman's Bank t. 
Vose, Whittier t. 







































Wadleigh, Copelaiid t. 
Wadleigh, Drew t. 
Wadleigh, Eldridge t. 
Wadleigh, Hunt t. 
Wadleigh, PeBobscot BooM t 
Wadleigh, Smith t. 
Wadleigh, Smith t. 
Wadleigh, Ware T. 
Wadsworth, Fales t. 
Wadsworth, Howard t. 
Watte, Cushmaa t. 
Waite, McKeniwy t. 
Waile, Nortra t. 
WaUo Bank, State t. 
Waldo Co. Comm'rs, Hark- 

Waldobomgh, Grotoa t. 
WaUbhoreagh, Knoz t. 
Wal<lobocMighy Knos ▼• 

iii. 388, Waldoborough, Wi s o a es e t t. 

ZZTi. 555, Walker, Chase t. 

ZZTi. 504, Walker, Coz t. 

Ti. 68, Walker, Freeman t. 

ZZTi. 107, Walker, Holt t. 

ZTii. 38, Walker, JudJdns t. 

ZZTi. 114, Walker, lloLellan t. 

ziT. 163, Walker, Mason T. 

zziT. 237, Walker, Merrill t. 

zziT. 14, Walker, Plnmmer t. 

ZTi. 241, Walker, State t. 

zzi. 211, Walker, Stinson t. 

zziii. 453, Walker, Warren t. 

ziT. 57, Wallis,KingsleyT. 

ZZT. 101, Ward, Gage t. 

It. 196, Ward, Howe t. 

ZTi. 433, Ward, Mansfield V. 

zii. 466, Wardwell, Cunniogbaoi t. 

ZZT. 411, Ware, Brown t; 

Digitized by 




WA — WL 


























































Wire, Cobnm ▼. 
Warren, Aldrich ▼. 
Wtrren, Coombt ▼. 
Warren, Doe ▼. 
Warren, Pike ▼. 
Warren, Pingree ▼. 
Warren, Trott ▼. 
Warren, Wood ▼. 
Washburn, Deane v. 
Waihbum, Neal v. 
Wasbbom, Thomas v. 
Washington, Emeraon v. 
Washington, Emeraon v. 
Washington, Jefferson v. 
Washington Co. Bank, Emar- 

son V. 
Wass, Gray v. 
Waterhouse, Gibson v. 
Waterhoase, Gibson v. 
Waterhouse, Greeley v. 
Waterhouse, Shepley v. 
Waterhouse, Wells v. 
Wat8on« Brown v. 
*Watson, Harmon v. 
Watson, Ryan v. 
Watson, Thompson v. 
Watson, Whitman v. 
Webb, Lewis v. 
Webb, Parsons v. 
Webb, Potter v. 
Webb, Potter v. 
Webb, Potter v. 
Webb, Spratt v. 
Webber, Chadwick v. 
Webber, Fillebrown ▼• 
Webster, Bumham ▼. 
Webster. Bumham ▼. 
Webster, Halley ▼. 
Webster, Irish v. 
Webster, Page ▼. 
Webster, State ▼. 
Webster, State ▼. 
Wedcewood, State ▼. 
Welch, Brigham ▼. 
Welch, Chesley ▼. 
Welch, State ▼. 
Weld, Holland ▼. 
Weld, Kent ▼. 
Weld, Androscoggin Side 

Booms V. 
Wellington, Dennett ▼, 
Wellington, Havnes ▼. 
Wells, Copeland ▼. 
Wells, Gilman ▼. 
Wells, State ▼. 
Wentworth, Baker ▼. 
Wentworth, Clark ▼. 
Wentworth, Goodall ▼. 
Wentworth, Gowen ▼. 
West, Rice ▼. 
JVeston, Ames ▼. 
Weston, Bryer ▼. 
Weston, Dillingham ▼. 
Weston, Fiik ▼. 

































































Weston, Heald ▼. 
Weston, Hozie ▼. 
Weston, Kelly ▼. 
Weston, Jewett ▼. 
Weston, PitU ▼. 
Wetherbee, Holbrook ▼. 
WeymoQth, Wentworth ▼. 
Wheaton, Gardiner Bank ▼. 
Wheeler, Barnard ▼. 
Wheeler, Cowan ▼. 
Wheeler, Cowan ▼. 
Wheeler, Hasty ▼. 
Wheeler, Huntress ▼. 
Wheeler, Warren ▼. 
Whidden, Gilbert ▼. 
W hidden, Heath ▼. 
Whidden, Turner ▼. 
Whipple, Bennock ▼. 
Whipple, Fuller ▼. 
Whipple, McKenney >. 
Whipple, Scott ▼. 
Whipple, Scott ▼. 
Whipple, Springer ▼. 
WhiUker, Lnnt ▼. 
Whitaker, Savage v. 
White, Bradbury v. 
White, Carle v. 
White, Doyle ▼. 
White, Furbiah ▼. 
White, Kendall ▼. 
White, Morton ▼. 
White, Mussey ▼. 
White, Rogers ▼. 
White, Souie ▼. 
Whitefield, Johnson ▼. 
Whitmore, Hascall ▼. 
Whitney, Beaman ▼. 
Whitney, Bixby ▼. 
Whitney, Bixby ▼. 
Whitney, Dunn ▼. 
Whitney, Machias ▼. 
Whitney, Quimby ▼. 
Whitney, Pierce ▼. 
Whitney, Porter ▼. 
Whitney, Saco Man. Co. ▼. 
Whitney, Warren ▼. 
Whittemore, Barker ▼. 
Whittemore, Welch ▼. 
Whittier, Baldwin ▼. 
Whittier, Gookin ▼. 
Whittier, Nickerson ▼. 
Whittier, Rowe ▼. 
Whittier, Severance ▼. 
Whittier, Sute ▼. 
Widgery, Fox ▼. 
Wiggin, Edmunds ▼. 
Wi«in, Harlow ▼. 
Wilbur, Ordway ▼. 
Wiley, Thompson ▼. 
Wilkina, Commercial Bank ▼. 
Wilkins, Gordon ▼. 
Wilkins, Harriman ▼. 
Wilkins, Hodsdon ▼. 
WUkioa, Rejiu>ld8 ▼. 

Digitized by 




WI. — YO. 

xxi. 658, 

xiv. 168, 

xzJT. S99, 

jcij. 142, 

viii. 434, 

X. 278, 

XXV. 209, 

xiii. 281, 

xxii. 17, 

XTJii. 391, 

xxi. 217, 

xiv. 411, 

XXT. 561, 

viii. 163, 

XI. 49S, 

vii. 96, 

xxi. 2T3, 

xxiv. 343, 

Ti. 386, 

xix. 406, 

xxiv. 273, 

xxii. 116^ 

xvii. 372, 

XV. 109, 

xrii. 37S, 

xxii. 20T, 

xxiT. 437, 

xxi. 494, 

xxiii. 125, 

XV. 363, 

xiii. 74, 

xiii. 225, 

X. 97, 

xix. 317, 

xii. 293, 

iii. 421, 

xvii. 222, 

xxvi. 122, 

xvii. 349, 
XX. 89, - 
xix. 394, 

Wilkim, Rice t. 
Wilkin*, Sewall v. 
WilkiM, White v. 
Willard, Hanson v. 
Williams, Hall t. 
Williams, tf all ▼. 
Williams, Heath v. 
Williams, La wry ▼. 
Williams, Morse ▼. 
WiUiams, Neal t. 
Williams, Northern Bank t. 
Williams, PhilUps t. 
Williams, State ▼. 
Wiliiamaon, Bishop t. 
Williamson, Bishop v. 
Williamson, Fairbanks ▼. 
Williamson, Goald r. 
Williamson, ScoCt v. 
WiUington, Flagg ▼. 
Wilshiro, Webb v. 
Wilson, Agricultural Bank t. 
Wilson, Aroee ▼. 
W^ilson, Babcock t. 
Wilson, Eveleth t. 
Wilson, Gage t. 
W^ilson, Kass t. 
Wilson, Simpson t. 
Wilson, Southard ▼. 
Wilton, Latham v. 
W^ilton, Poland r. 
Windham, Baker t. 
l^indham, Greene v. 
Windham, Standish v. 
Windsor, Augiista ▼. 
IVindsor, Norris v. 
Wing, Dolbier ▼. 
M^jPgt Fuller V. 
W'uinegance Mill Co., 

Sawyer v. 
Winslow, Clark v. 
W'inslow, Douglas v. 
Winslow, Littlefield t. 












































Winslow, Marshall v. 
Winslow, Melvin v. 
Winslow, Wyman v. 
Winthrop, Sidney v. 
Wiscaaset, Boothbay v. 
Wiscasset, Pittston v. 
Wiscasset Bank, Adams v. 
Wise, Shaw v. 
Wiswell, Hewes v. 
Witham, Bluehill Academy v. 
Witham, Howard v. 
Witham, Morrison v. 
Witham, Porter v. 
Withereil, Boies v. 
Witherle, Dresser v. 
Withey, Webster v. 
Wood, Abbott V. 
Wood, Abbott V. 
Wood, Blanchard v. 
Wood, Kirby v. 
Wood, Wheeler v. 
Wood, Wyman v. 
Woodbridge, Davenport v. 
Woodbury, Dyer v. 
Woodbury, Gilb^ v. - 
Woodbury, Nelson v. 
Woodbury, Unitarian 8oc*y v. 
Woodman, Ayer v. 
Woodman, Bear Camp RiTcr j 

Co. v. 
Woodman, Hill v. 
Woodman, Kimball v. 
Woodman, Reed v. 
Woodman, Reed v. 
Woodsum. Buckley v. 
Woodward, Christ's Church v. 
Wormell, Lunt v. 
Wright, Sears v. 
Wyatt, Crosby v. 
Wyman, Raymond v. 
Wyman, Smith v. 
Wyman, Smith v. 


viu. 272, 

i. 406, 

xxvi. 167, 

xiv. 216, 
xviii. 166, 

XXV. 69, 

xxvi. 491, 
xiv. 326, 

York, Boody v. 
York, Boston v. 
York, Clinton v. 
York, Richardson v. 
York Bank, Palmer v. 
York Co. Commas, North 

Berwick v. 
York County Commissioners, 

Bacon v. 
York Man. Co., CutU v. 

xviii. 190, York Man. Co., Cutts v. 

t. 365, Young, Fuller v. 

viii. 14, Young, Green v. 

xviii. 262, Young, Hunnewell v. 

iii. 30, Young, Norton v. 

iv. 431, Young, Preble v. 

xxv. 153, Young, Scudder v. 

iii. 67, Young, Thatcher v. 

xvii. 70, Young, Wentworth v. 

Digitized by 


Digitized by 






I. What will alMite a writ or other 

proeoM, 2 

fiets tm tie writ or Brnmu^ 9 

(b) Diatib mr duM^ of portUSf 2 

(e) Mismowter or nomjoinder^ 2 

(d) P o n dt m n f af mmnkker metiom^ 3 

II. How to taka adrantage of matten 

in abatement, 3 

(a) BiffUminokoUmemiyOrinhoT^Z 
(b^ Bjf motion^ or otherwise, 4 

III. When, and bj whom, the objec- 

tion moat be made, 4 

(a) JH wkmt tjaie, flemo ormotiom 
* M okotewutU Mval heJUed* or 

maie^ 4 

(b) WktU wiU he m woiter of 
wkmUers in mhotement^ 6 

IV. Form of plea, and judgment 

thereon, 6 




ERAL, 7 
I. Bj and against whom, and for 

what, an action will lie, 7 

II. Commencement of actiona, 10 

III. Whether local or tranntory, 11 

IV. Multiplicitr of actiona, 11 

I. Appointment and rcTocation, 

how proved, 14 

II. Extent of aathoritj, and delega- 
tion of powers, 15 

III. Ratification and adoption, 17 

IV. Time and manner of executing 

agencies, 20 

V. Liability of principal for acts of 

agents, 20 

VI. Liability of agents, 22 

(a) To their jtrineipaU, 22 

(bS To third persons^ 22 

VIL Rights and remedies of princi- 

pals and agents, 23 

VIII. Factors, 25 

IX. Pleadings and eridence, 25 

ALIEN, 26 



I. General principles, 26 

II. Of writs and declarations, 27 

IIL Of pleadings, 30 

IV. Of records, judgments, and ex- 
ecutions, 30 
V. Of officers' returns, 31 
VI. In other cases, 32 
VIL Effect of amendments, 33 
I. In what caaea an appeal lies, 33 
II. Security to prosecute an appeal, 35 
IH. Effect of an appeal, and pro- 
ceedings in the court aboTC, 35 

apprentice; 35 

I. Of binding persons to appien- 

ticeahip, 35 
II. Richts, liabilitiea and remodiea 

of the respectiTC parties, 36 



I. Submission, 37 

II. Authority and duty of the arbi- 

tratora, 39 

III. Of the award, 41 

(a) VaUdity, 41 

(b) Jhoord retpeotiMg «mU, 43 

fc) Con&tmetion^ 43 
d) Return imio eomt^ oMd ac- 

Oonthereon^ 43 

IV. Effect of an award, and how 

enforced or aToided, 44 






I. Assisnment of choeea in action 

and other rights, 50 
U. Effect of an aasigmneat of a 

chose in action, 51 

(a) RightM of the oioignee. 61 

(b) Fmymento to, or release 
from, the assignor^ 52 

(c) Set-of and othor matters, 53 

(d) Pleadings and e/fridemce^ 53 
III. Assianments for the benefit of 

creditors, 54 

(a) U^4«r am. 1836, o. 240, 54 

(b) OeneraUy, 55 

Digitized by 









I. Of the action in general, 58* 

II. To recover back money paid, 61 
III. Of receiving money to the oae 

of a third poison, 64 
What payments of money will 

support the money counts, 65 
Quantum meruit and quantum 

Talebat, 67 

(a) Where there has heem no ex- 
press contract, 67 

(b) Where there has been an ex- 
press contract, 69 

Pleading, evidence, and judg- 
ment, 71 

I. What property is attachable, 
and when, 73 

Validity of an attachment, 75 

(a) General prindples^ 75 

(b) Validity cf an attachwurU 
impersonal estate^ 75 

(c) Validity of an aUaehmeni 
of real estaU^ 76 

How defeated or dissolved, 77 

(a) /Negligence or misdoings of 
the officer, 77 

(b) Lapse of time^ 77 

(c) Amendments^ 78 

(d) Otherwise^ 78 
Priority of attachments, 79 
Effect, rights and liabilities re- 
sulting from an attachment, 79 

(a) Interest cf the debtor^ 79 

(b) RighU and dMties cf the ojfl^ 
cer, 79 

(c) Powers and liabilities of a 
bailee or receipter^ 82 

(d) In general. 84 

I. Authority of an attorney, 85 

II. Duty and liability of an attorney, 86 

III. Lien of an attorney, 87 
BAIL, 89 
BANK, 92 

I. Complaint, accusation and bond, 96 
II. Pleadings, evidence and pro- 
ceedings, 97 
III. Judgment and iu effects, 99 
BEACH, 99 

I. Form, construction and validity, 103 

General requisites, 103 

MsoluU or contingent, 103 

Construction, 104 

Consideration, 104 
When it is a discharge of 

the original cause of action^ 106 

(f ) When net itaUdy 109 

(g) Jfotes payable m spee^ or* 
tides, 119 

II. Negotiability and transftr. 111 

III. Acceptance, IIS 

IV. Presentment, demand and 

notice, 113 

(a^ When necessary, 113 

(b) By whom, and how, to be 
made or given, 114 

(c) At what time and place, 116 

(d) Waiver, or modifieation of, 

by agreement or usage, 118 

(e) Protest, 120 

V. Liabilities and renMdiea of the 

different parties, 121 

VI. Actions, 124 

(a) When^ and b^ whom mm 
oftiou^ is msinfai— Wt, 124 

(b) When subject to ofuitisM 
between other parttes, 125 

(c) Defences, 127 
VII. Pleadings and evidanoe, 129 

VIH. Damages, 135 

BOND, 136 

I. In general, 136 
U. Construction and breach, 138 

HI. Pleadings and evidence, 141 
BOOMS, 143 
ANCE, 146 
I. When precedent, or subsequent, 151 

II. Generally, 153 

I. Act of separation, 156 
II. Organisation of the depart- 
ments of government, 167 
HI. Elections, 158 
IV. Campatibility of offices, 159 
V. Laws affecting contracts, or 

vested rights, 159 

VI. Ex post facto, and retrospective 

laws, 160 
VII. Laws to take private property 

for public uses, 161 
VIII. Laws affected by the declaratioa 

of rights, 162 

IX. Judicial acts of the legislature, 163 

Digitized by 




X. Other lawi, and general prinoi 


I. What will eoDfltitQte or prore a 

n. Validity of, 
UI. Contidention, 









In genMrmlf 

Moral and $quitaUe obUga- 

Otkor eansideratians, 
Want^ arfaUwr§ of conoid' 



Wairer, merger and diacharge, 

Perlbnnance, or breach, 

(a) What wUl oxeuoe forform- 

(b) What will eonttUuU a per- 
f o r mm n ee or kreach, 


(a) Dependent and independent 

(b) Partietdair agreemente^ 

(c) In general^ 

I. How created, organized, or dia- 

n. Transfer of shares, 

III. Corporate powers, rights and 


IV. Rights and liabilities of officers 

and members, 
V. Pleadings and evidence, 

I. Recorerj of costs, 

(a) Jn what eaees a party will 
or toiU not recover costs, 

(b) Who is liatHe for eoeU as a 
party to the smit, 

n. Costs in particular cases, 
III. When ^ected by the amount 

of damages, 
rV. Taxation of costs, 



I. Covenants real, 
n. Construction, performance and 

m. Generally, 


















I. In actions on torts, 

(a) JSgainst ogicers, 

(b) Other i^juriest 
II. In actions on contracts, 

(a) On simple coniraetSf 

(b) On eooenamts real, 

(c) Other covenants and konds^ 
Under statutes. 



I. Parties, 

(a) Deeds made hf agents, or 
under anthority of law, 213 

(b) Conveyances ky votes of 
proprietors, 214 

(c) GeneraUy, 215 
II. Execution and deliTcry, 215 

III. Acknowledgment and registra- 

tion, 216 

rV. Alterations, canceling and re- 

delirery, 219 

V. Validity and effieaoy, 219 

VI. Construction, 220 

(a) Boundaries^ 220 

(b) OeneraUy, 227 

I. When admissible in OTidence, 233 

II. Notice to adverse party, taking, 
returning, opening and filing, 234 

III. Depositions in perpetnam, 235 


I. Of legatees and devisees, and 

their seizin, 236 

II. When a deviae is in fee, for 

life, in tail, or otherwise, 237 

III. Whether a devise or legacy is 
specific, abeolute, conditional, 
contingent, or executory, 239 

IV. Remedies, 240 
DOWER, 344 

I. Who is entitled to dower, and 

nature of the right, 244 

Of what a widow is dowable, 245 

(a) What seixin ^ the hnskand 
is necessary, 245 

(b) Of what Unds and of what 
portion thereof, a widow 
is dowabU, 246 

Bar of Dower, 246 

How dower is recoverable, 248 

(a) Demand and assignment of 
dower, 848 

(b) Actions of dower, pleadings, 
ovidenes, and damages, 248 

DURESS, 249 






Digitized by 





ENTRY, 253 

EQUITY, 252 

I. Jurisdictioii, 252 

II. Practice, 256 

III. PleadiDgi, 259 

IV. Evidence, 261 
v. General principlec, 262 

(a) Jn eases of trusU^ 962 

(b) /» eases if fraud, 264 
(e) BiUs for spocifU perform- 

«nee, 266 

(d) BiUs to redeem^ 268 

(e) Other eases^ 269 
ERROR, 271 

I. In what caaes it will lie, 271 

II. For what defecta, 272 

III. Proceedinga, 272 

ESCAPE, 273 

ESCROW, 273 


I. By deed or other apecialty, 274 

II. By parol, or in paia, 278 


I. Production of the beat eridence, 281 

(a) Jn ease of itutrumsnts or 
records lost, or notprodueed, 281 

(b) jSttesHng witaosses^ 281 

(c) Copies, 283 

(d) OemermUy, 283 
II. Admiaaibility of evidence aa 

reapecta ita qoalit/, 286 

(a) Certainty, 286 

(b) Relswaney, and herein of 
usage, 286 

(c) Materiaiity, 289 

(d) Hearsay, and res imtor alios, 289 

(e) Entries, 290 

(f ) Opimien and r^^ntation, 290 

III. Admiaaibility of parol evidence, 

to afiect the conatnictioB of 
writinga, 291 

(a) GeneraUy, 291 

(b) Evidence of the acts or sit- 
uation of parties, 296 

(c) Incase qf receipt*, or ae- 
knowledgmsnt of consider^ 
Titian, 296 

(d) To control or eacplaiM re- 
cords and judgments, 297 

IV. Preaumptive evidence, 296 
V. Burden of proof, 300 

VI. Evidence, aa applicable to par- 
ticular Bubjecta and iaauea, 303 

(a) Insanity, 303 

(b) Usage, 303 
(o) Fraud, 304 

(d) Hand writing, 305 

(e) Judgments and records, 305 

(f ) Otflcer*' returns, 307 

(g) Records of corporations, 307 
(h) Public records, documents, 

official acU and certificates, 308 
(i ) Ancient books and deeds, 309 
(j) Foreign laws, 310 


(k) Book aecamast ^10 

VII. Declarations and confeaaiona, 312 

(a) Res gestae, 819 

(b) Declarations and csmfs9' 
sums of ^fties, 813 

(c) Doelarattons and cottfesmams 

of privies and agents, 315 

(d) Declarations of third per- 
sons, 317 

VIII. Other principlea. 317 



I. Of isauing exeeationa, and their 

validity, 324 

II. Levies upon real eatate. 324 

(a) GeneraUy, 324 

(b) Appraisers and the ap^ 
proioemtnt, 327 

(c)^ Return of tho ofcer, 329 

(d) Rotmrning and recording the 
execution, 331 

(e) Deiimory ef actxm, 331 
if) Levies en Sfuitim ^ re- 

cImm, om£ inter estSf by 
virtue of bonds, 332 

(g) Redemption eftrr osn eHent, 

or sale on execution, 333 

III. Levies upon peraonal property, 334 

IV. When and how diacharged, 835 

TORS, 836 

I. Appointment, powera, dutiea 

and liabilitiea, 336 

(a) Interest in, and authority 
over, the estate^ and soles 
aereof, 386 

(b) Representation of insolven- 
cy, and proceedings, 338 

(c) GeneraUy, 330 
II. Suits by and against, 341 

(A) When maintainable, 341 

(h) Pleadings, practice, evi- 
dence, and cosU, 342 
III. Executora de son tort, and for- 
eign executora and adminiatrm- 
tors, 346 
EXTENT, 347 
FACTOR, 347 
FEES, 347 
FENCE, 348 
I. By common law, 348 
II. By statute, 348 
FERRY, 349 
FIRES, 350 
I. Powers of the legislature, in re- 
gard to fisheries, 350 
II. Sututes regulating fisheries, 350 
FLATS, 352 

TAINER, 354 

Digitized by 








I. Fraad in general and actioni 

therefor, 356 

n. -Fraodalent contracta, 358 

in. Fraudulent conveyancei, 359 

IV. Fraadalent aalea of personal 

property, 362 


I. What 18 a sufficient stgning , 364 

IL Caaes within the statute, 364 

(b,) To ekoTgB an K^ecmtor or 

mdminittrmior, 364 

(h) To answer for ike debts 4^. 

of another, 365 

(fi) For tke sole of lands, fe. 366 

(d) For tke sale of goods, ^, 368 

(e) l^nm an agreement not to ke 
j^tformed wUkin a year, 3 

III. In general, 369 


GAMING, 370 





1. Nature of the contract, 373 

II. Notice to the guarantor, 374 

III. Discharge of 3ie guarantor, 375 
HEIRS, 377 

I. Rights and liabilities of the has- 

hand, ^ 379 

II. Rights and liabilities of the 

wife, 379 

in. Their respectiTe rights in her 

property, 380 

IV. Actions hj and against hus- 

band and wife, :^1 





I. What ii indictable, 383 

II. Pleading, 384 

(a) UndiBT statutes, 384 

(b) Parties, 384 

(c) Other matters of form, 385 
III. Practice, 387 


INFANT, 390 

I. General richti and liabilities, 390 

II. Contracts by infants, 890 







I. Policy, 395 

II. Losses, 396 

III. Pleadings and evidence, 397 

IV. Fire insurance, 397 


I. Creation and seTerance of each 

estates, 400 

II. Rights and liabilities of each 

tenant, 400 

III. Remedies, 401 


JUDGE, 403 


I. Rendition and entering of judg- 
ment, 403 
II. Arrest of, 404 
III. Eflfect of, 404 

(a) ^ to parties, 404 

(b) As to tkirdoersons, 405 
rV. Actions on, and satisfhction of 

judgments, 406 

V. Judgments of courts of other 

sUles, 407 


JURY, 409 


I. Jurisdiction, 411 

(a) In personal matters, 411 

(b) ffkere title to real estate is 

in question, 411 

(c) In criminal wuUters^ 412 
II. Ministerial acts, 413 

III. In general, 413 


QUORUM, 413 

RUM UNUS, 413 

I. What constitutes the relation, 414 
II. Tenancies at sufferance, or at 

wiU, 415 

m. Rights and remedies, 415 

(a) Against strangers, 415 

(b) j^ainst each other, 416 
rcS ^nblements, 418 

(d) Notice to quit, and determina' 
tion of tenancies, 418 

(e) Action for use and occupa- 

tion, 419 



I. What are questions of law, 420 

II. What are questions of ftct, 421 




Digitized by 





I. Liens in genenl. 


n. Waiver or extinsuitbment of, 429 

I. In general, 430 

(a) Real aetUms, 430 

(b) Ferspnml aOUms^ 431 

(c) Actions against executors 
and adnUnistratars^ 432 

(d) Actions against sheriffs^ 432 

(e) Penal actions^ 433 
(Q Comfntation of time, 433 

II . Exceptions in, and avoidance of, 
the statute, 435 

(a) Parties abroad, 435 

(b) Attested note, 435 

(c) Merchants* and other ac- 
counts, 436 

(d) Concealment or ignorance 

of tie cause of action, 436 

(e) Commencing an action, 436 

(f ) Acknowledgment or promise, 437 
(£) PaymenU, 438 
(h) Other things, 439 

LIQUOR, 439 


LOGS, 440 

LORD'S DAY, 440 


LUMBER, 441 






MANURE, 443 






I. Organisation, 445 

(a) Oficers, 445 

(b) Company limits, 447 

(c) Enrollment, 448 
II. Volunteer companies, 448 

ni. Duties and liabilities, 449 

IV. Notices and warnings, 450 

V. Exemptions and excuses, 451 

(a) By reason of employment or 
profession, 451 

(b) By reason of bodily ii^rmity, 451 

(c) How and where excuses are 
to be made, and exemptions 
shown, 451 

VI. Actions and defbnces, 452 

VII. Evidence, 453 

MILLS, 455 

I. Rights and liabilities of different 

parties, 465 


11. Complaints for flowing, 4i56 




MINOR, 458 




MORTGAGE, . {459 

I. What constitutes a mortgage, 459 
Rights and interesu of the 
parties, 460 

Trans^ of rights in mortgaged 
estates, 462 

(a) By contract, 463 

(b) Vnder legal process, 463 
Discharge or extinguishment of 
amortga^, 463 
Redemption, 465 

(a) fyho may redeem, and when, 
from whom, and how, 

(b) Adjustment of accounts 



(c) Bills in equity to redeem, 
(a) Contribution, 

Actions at law, and judgments 

Mortgage of chattels, 

I. Newly discovered evidence. 
Mistake or fault of jurors, 
(^) Misbehavior or mistake of 





(h) Verdict against law or 

(c) Excessive or inadequate 
III. Errors of the court, 

(ti) Misstatement of the law, 
(h) Admission of improper tesH- 

(c) Improper exclusion of tesH' 
I. When necessary, 
II. How giren or made, or waived, 479 











I. Authority and daty. 




Who may serve process. 
How it may be served. 
Special instructions. 


As respects other qgicers, 
. In other respects^ 
II. Liabilities, 

(a) Of sheriff for acU rf his 
deputies, * 485 

(b) To creditor, 486 

(c) To the debtor, 487 

(d) To others, 488 

Digitized by 




in. Actions, 489 

IV. Falsely pretending to be an 

officer, 490 


OUSTER, 491 


PARISH, 492 

I. Formation, and effect thereof, 492 
II. Parsonage or ministerial lands 

or fbnds, 493 

ni. Membership, and rights and 

liabilities or members, 493 

IV. Taxes, 494 

V. In general, 495 


I. Bj whom, and of what, parti- 
tion may be had, 495 
II. Proceedings, 495 

III. Effect, 497 

I. How constituted, 498 

II. Powers and liabilities of part- 
ners, 498 

(a) ^s respects the partnership 
property, 498 

(b) Js respects each others 499 

(c) How jar one can bind tht 
firm, 500 

(d) Dormant partners, 501 
in. Pleadings, 502 

IV. Evidence, 502 
PAUPER, 504 

I. Settlement, 504 

(a) By derivation, 504 

(b) By residence, on March 21, 
Ifel, . 505 

(c) By incorporation or divis- 
ion of towns or annexation, 507 

(dj By residence for five years, 509 

(e) By holding properly, 510 

(f) DonUcil, 510 

(g) When preventedt by receiv 
ing relief as a pauper, 51 1 

(hi Generally, 512 

II. Actions, 513 

/a) Between towns, 513 

(b) ^'otice, 513 

(c) By individuals against 
towns, 515 

(d) By towns against individ- 
Mols, 515 

in. Removal of paupers, 51 

IV. Plantations, 516 

PAYMENT, » 617 

I. What is payment, 517 

II. Appropriation of pay menu, 517 




PANY, 619 


TURE, 520 


PLAN, 521 



I. Parties, 523 

(a) Generally, 522 

(b) Joinder of plaintiffs, 523 
(c^ Joinder of drfendants, 524 

n. Declaration, 525 

(a; General rnlesy 525 

(1>) Declarations in particular 

actions, 525 

(c) Variance, 527 

III. General requisites of pleading, 527 

a) Certainty and particularity, 527 

b) Materiality, 528 

(c) Duplicity, 528 

(d) Departure and repufnancy, 528 

(e) Must answer all of last 
pleading, and be good in 
every part, 528 

(f) Fornung an issue, and eon' 
elusion of pleas, 529 

(|) %«^ anijprofert, 530 

IV. Special pleading and particular 

pleas, 530 

V. Pleading double, and repleader, 531 
VI. Defects in pleading, when 

cured, 531 

VII. Admissions by pleading, 5 32 

VIII. Surplusage, 532 

IX. Brief statements, 532 

PLEDGE, 533 




I. Prison limits, 534 

II. Arrest and commitment, 535 

(a) Under stat. 1831, c. 520, 535 

(M In other cases, 535 

III. rroceedings in obtaining dis- 

charge, 536 

(a) jfotice to creditor, 536 

(b) Justices and their selection, 537 

(c) Examination and proceed- 
ings, 538 

(d) Administration of oath, 539 

(e) Certificate of discharge and 

its effect, 539 

IV. Bonds, 541 

(a) Form of, 541 

(b) To wham given, 541 

(c) Approval, 541 

(d) Irhen good at common law, 
though not conformable to 
statute, 542 

(e) On mesne process, 543 
(f^ For liberty of jaU limits, 543 
(c) For disclosure on execution, 544 
(h) When the condition of the 

bond is saved^ 545 

(i ) Damages^ 546 

Digitized by 






I. Appearance, 547 

II. Agreed statement of ftctii, 54fc 

III. Motions and proceedings in 

court, before trial, 548 

(a) Motions in abatement^ 548 

(b) A'otice to f reduce papers^ 548 

(c) Faying into courts 549 

(d) Offtr to be defaulted for a 
neeified «tw, 549 

IV. Trials, 550 

(a) LoMS of papers^ 550 

(b) Right to open and close, 550 

(c) Depositions, 550 
(d\ Examination of ^eitncsses, 552 

(e) Mode of conducting trials 
and arguments, 554 

(f ) Issue to be tried, 555 

(g) Agreements of parties, 556 
(b) Ordering a nonsuit or de- 
fault, 55G 

(i ) Power of the court to direct 

the course of the trial, 557 

(k) Instructions to the jury, 559 

(h Assessment of damages, 559 
V. Entries by tbe clerk, records 

and executions, 560 

VI. Costs, 561 

VII. Venire de novo, 561 

VIII. Contempt of court, C61 








LANDS, 568 






I. When maintainable, 571 

II. Pleadings by plaintiff, 572 

III. Pleadings by defendant, 573 

IV. Evidence, 674 

(a) On the part of the demand- 
ant, 574 

(b) On the part of the tenant, 575 
V. Judgment, and its effects, 575 


I. In criminal process, 576 

II. On appeal in civil suits, 576 

III. For debts, 677 

RECORD, 678 




I. What is a release or discharge, 578 

II. Effect, 679 


I. Who may maintaio the action, 680 


II. M ben maintainable, 5^ 

III. Bond, 581 

IV. Judgment for a return, 582 

V. Plewlings and evidence, 562 






RETURN, 5e3 





RIVER, 586 

RIOT, 586, 


SALE, 587 

I. Delivery, 587 

(a) Asbetttecn the vendor and 
tendce, 567 

(b) As against creditors or sub- 
sequent purchasers, £88 

II. Construction and terms of a 

sale, 590 

(a) H-htn absolute, 51*0 

(b) Vfon condition precedent, 51H) 

(c) Lpon condition subsequent, 591 

(d) When the property passes, 591 

(e) Validity of a sale, 592 

(f) Warranty, (92 

III. When voidable, 61;2 

(a) By a creditor cr subsequent 
purchaser, 592 

(b) By vendor, and of stoppage 

in transitu, 593 

(c) By vendee, 594 

IV. Involuntary sales, 515 
in) Under legal process, 695 
(b) By operation of law, 595 

V. Evidence, 595 
TRICTS, 697 



SEAL, 601 



1. What is a good seizin, 601 

II. Diseeizin, 602 

(a) What is, 602 

(b) A0 between joint tenants or 
tenants in ccmmon, 605 

(c) Bights of a disseizor, 605 

(d) Effect of a disseizin, 605 

(e) How defeated, 605 
III. Evidence, 6(6 


SET-OFF, 607 

I. When allowable, 607 

II. How to be presented, 608 

Digitized by 




III. Set-off of jod|nMBti aod exe- 

cutionsy 606 





I. TiUe, 610 
II. Wages, 610 

III. Owners, bia 

(a) Rights and liabilUies, 610 

(b) Rdation of maater oiul 
owners^ 611 

(c) Managing owners, 612 

(d) Recusant owners, 613 
IV. Average and contribution, 613 



STAMP, 614 



I. CoDBtruction, 614 

II. What are public atatutet, 616 
III. Repeal or revivor, 616 


SUNDAY, 617 


SURETY, 617 

I. LiabiUty, 617 

II. When discharged, 618 
HI. Remediea, 618 

(a) Against principal, 618 

(b) Contribution, 619 

(c) Indemnity given, 619 
TAX, 621 

I. Assescment, 621 

(a) Upon what taxes are to be 
assessed, 621 

(b) Where, and to whom proper- 
ty is to be assessed, 622 

(c) Making out assessments, 622 
n. Abatement, 622 

III. Sales of land for taxes, 623 

IV. Direct taxes of the United States, 624 
V. Remedy for ap illegal assess^ 

ment, 625 






TENDER, 625 


TIME, 627 


TOWN, 628 

I. Powers and liabilities, 629 

II. For what purposes a town may 

raise money, 629 
lU. Meetings, 

(a) Warrant and return^ 629 

(b) Proceedings, 631 
IV. Town officers, 631 

(a) Election and qualification, 631 

(h) Powers and duties, 632 

V. Difision of towns, 632 

I. When the action will lie, and 

for whom, 633 

(a) For injuries to real estate, 633 

(b) For injuries to personal pro- 
P^lyj . 635 

(c) ror it^uries under legal pro- 
cess, 636 

II. Proceedings in sach action, 636 

TROVER, 636 

I. When it Ues, 637 

II. Parties, 637 

III. Conversion, 637 

IV. Pleadings and evidence, 638 

I. Process, 639 

(a) When maintainable, 639 

(b) Where and against u^om, 639 

II. Disclosure, 639 

III. When the tmstee will be charg- 

ed, 640 

(a) For speciJU property in his 
hands, 640 

(b) For indebtedness or other 
liability, 641 

IV. When discharged, 642 
V. Assignment, 643 

VI. Effect, as between the principal 

and trustee, 644 

VII. Practice, 645 

TRUSTS, 646 

USAGE, 647 

USURY, 647 

I. What is usury, and its effect 

upon contracts, 647 

II. Remedy, 648 

III. Evidence, 649 
VERDICT, f 650 

I. Form and effect, 650 

II. When it may be amended, 651 

III. When it will be set aside for 

error or misconduct of jury, 651 


VOTING, 652 

WAGER, 653 

WAGES, 653 

WAIVER, 653 




WASTE, 654 



COURSE, 654 

WAY, 665 

I. Rivers and streams, 655 

II. County roads or highways, 655 
(a) Authority to lay out or alter, 655 
(bj Preliminary proceedings, 656 
(c) Proceedings in laying out 

and accepting, 


Digitized by 




III. Town or printo wtjg, 







(a) ^udkoritf to Uy ant or mlter^ 657 

(b) Proceedings^ mnd return of 




Jivproval mnd aUowontef 

Jppeal mmd proceedings 
Damacei for laying out, 
IllofaJ proceedings in laying 

oot, 661 

Diacontinuance, 661 

Making, 661 

Repairing, 662 

Defects and obetnictionB, 662 

(a) Damages to persons injured^ 66*2 

(b) Indieimenty 665 

(c) Obstructions by individ' 
uals, 665 

Law of the road, 665 

Ways other than by statute, 666 

WIDOW, 666 

WII,L, 666 

I. Different kinds of wills, 667 

(a) ^uneupalite^ 667 

(b) CodieU, 667 

(c) Foreign wiUSy 667 
Revocation, 667 
Probate, 667 
Construction, 668 






I. Competency, 


Forties to the note or secu- 
rity^ 670 

(b) Partus to the suit, 679 

(c) Interest equally balanced^ 670 

(d) When excluded for interest, 671 

(e) When not excluded, 673 

(f) Restoration of competency^ 675 

(g) AffentSy 677 
(h) Husband and w^fe, 677 
(i) Jige, 677 
(k) front of rdipous belief 678 
(1) Particeps crtminis, 678 

II. Examination, 678 

(a) What a witness is bound to 
testify, 678 

(b) What a witness will be ex- 
cused from testifying, 678 

(c) Contradiction and impeach' 
ment of witnesses, 679 

(d) Sustaining witnesses, 680 
WRIT, 680 

I. Form and variety, 680 

II. Indorsement, 681 

III. Service, 681 

Digitized by 




Ad abandonment, by a demandant to the tenant, at the value estimated 
by the jury, has the efiect of a conveyance of the estate to the tenant, on 
condition of his paying the estimated value, within the periods provided by 
law. And, if the tenant do not pay the value, within the limited periods, he 
is considered, as yielding to the demandant, all his title and claim, both to the 
soil, and his improvements thereon ; and he cannot again have them estimat- 
ed, in a scire facias^ brought to revive the original judgment. Kennebec 
purchase v. Daois^ i. 309. 

See Betterments, 2, 7. 

DivoacE, 6, 9, 10. 

Insurance, II. 6. 



(a) Want op jurisdiction^ or dxfbcts in thr writ or servici. 

(b) Death or disability of parties. 
(<r) Misnomer, or nonjoinder. 

(d) Pendency of another action. 


(a) By plea in abatement, or in bar. 

(b) By motion, or otherwise. 


(a) At what time, pleas or motions in abatement must be 


(b) What will be a waiver of matters in abatement. 

As to abatement of Nuisances. See Equity, V. (e) 7, 8. Nuisance, 5. 

Digitized by 




(a) Waitt or jurisdictioh, or defkcts m the writ or irrtick 

(b) Death or oisarilitt of parties. 


(d) Peivoenct of another ACTIOV, 

(a) Want of jwritdiction^ or defects in the writ or service. 

1. The jurisdiction of the C. C. P., in Replevin, is regulated by the real 
value of the goods, and not by such price, as the plaintiff may choose to 
affix ; and, if an excessive value be alleged in the writ, for the purpose of 

O jurisdiction, the defendant may avail himself of it in abatement 
V. SuHiin, I. 133. 

2. Where all the trustees, in a foreign attachment, live in one county, and 
the defendant in another, and the action is brought in the latter county, the 
writ will abate, by stat 1821, ch. 61, though the defendant was duly sum- 
moned, and the plaintiff had discontinued as to all the trustees. Greets 
wood V. Fales^ vi. 405. 

8. A writ, returnable to the S. J. C, bearing the seal of the C. C. P.» 
will be abated. Bailey v. Smith, xii. 196. 

4. After the passage of the act establishing the District Court, the District 
Judge directed the clerk to provide a seal, with a certain prescribed device 
and impression ; and the clerk, before this was completed, sealed writs with 
the seal of the C. C. P., which had the same device, but no inscription, and 
delivered the same out of office ; a writ so sealed was abated. Tibhets v. 
SJiow, XIX. 204. 

5. If service of a writ be made by arrest of the defendant, and there be an 
omission, in the oath, required by law, to authorize the arrest, of the words, 
*' establish his residence beyond the limits of the State," and, of the words, 
^ that the demand in the writ is, or the pnncipal part thereof, due him,^* and 
there be no equivalent words, the writ may be abated for want of legal ser^ 
vice. Maine Bank v. Hervey^xxi. 38. 

(b) Death or disability of parties. 

1. Pending a real aetion, brought by husband and wife, in her right, if the 
wife die, the husband cannot proceed in that suit, for his estate by the curte* 
sy ; but the writ abates. Ryder v. Robinson, ii. 127. 

2. The death of one of several plaintifis, in an action of trespass quare 
dausmn, does not abate the suit. Haven v. Brovm, vn. 421. 

3. Upon the death of the defendant in replevin, the suit abates, the admin- 
istrator not being authorized to come in and defend. His remedy is, by 
action of replevin, or trover, against the plaintiff, after demand and refusal, to 
restore the property replevied. Merritt v. Lumbert, viii. 128. 

(e) Mis$umer or nonjoinder. 

1. In debt, on a judgment of the Superior Court of Greorgia, it is not a 
good plea in abatement, that the judgment was rendered against the defen- 
dant and another person, who is still living, in Boston in Massachusetts. But, 
in such action, the absent defendant should be named in the declaration, as 
party to the record, to avoid the effect of a plea of ntd tiel record. Hall 
v. Williams^ vuk 434. 

Digitized by 


ABATEMBirr, I. II. • 8 

2. It is good cause Ifbr the abatement of a writ of replevin, that at the time 
of the taking, by the defendant, the chattels were the joint property of the 
plaintiff and another person. McArtkutr v. Lone, xy, 245. 

3. An action against one of seveml jomt builders and owners of a vessel, 
for labor in builduig it, cannot be sustained, by proof of usage of the place, 
^' that the owners were not jointly responsible for materials and labor, and 
diat no one was authorized to make contracts for materials and labor for the 
vessel, so as to bind the owners generally ,^^ but the action may be abated* 
Leach v. Perkins^ ivii. 462. 

4. Upon a plea of misnomer of defendant, and a replication, that the defen- 
dant is as well known by the one name as the other, the jury, upon proof of 
that fact, may find the issue for the plaintiff, although the number of persoBt, 
who knew and called him by his true name, might be greater than that of 
those, who knew and called him by the other. Fryt v. Hinkley^ zviii. 320. 

See Agency, VI. (b) 9. 

(d) Pendency of another action. 

1. The pendency of a bill in equity, claiming the specific performance 
of a contract, does not preclude the plaintiff in equity from making a de- 
fence at law, in a suit by the other party against him, on the principle of 
abatement Haskins v. Lombard^ zvi. 140. 


(a) Bt plea i!r abatement, or in bar. 


(a) By plea in abatement^ or in har. 

1. In dower, several tenancy must be pleaded in abatement ; non-tenure 
may be pleaded in abatement or bar. Fosdick v. Goodingy i. 30. 

2. If a local action be commenced in the wrong county, the defendant 
may plead in abatement ; or, if it appear on the record, he may take advan- 
tage of it on demurrer ; or, if it do not so appear, under the general issue. 
EaJthomt v. Haines^ i. 238. Blake v. Freeman^ ziil ISO. 

3. In a writ of entry, counting on a disseizin by the tenant, the ol^tk>n, 
that &e disseizin was committed by his grantor, under whose deed he en- 
tered, should be taken in abatement. Porter v. ColCy iv. 20. 

4. The statute of 1881, c. 514, abolishing special pleading, applies only to 
pleas in bar. Chrdon v. Pierce^ xi. 213. 

5. In a writ of entry, counting on a disseizin by the tenant, the objection, 
that the disseizin was by his ancestor, and a descent cast, must be made 
by plea in abatement Gordon v. Pierce^ xi. 213. 

6. An objection to the ability of a petitioner for partition, to appear and 
prosecute, can be taken advantage of, only by plea in abatement. Upham 
V. BradUgj xvn. 423. 

7. Where a writ is made to run against the body of the defendant, where 
it is not warranted by law, he may take the objection to the form, by plea 
m abatement ; or, if it appear on the face of the writ, by motion. Cook v. 
Lotkrop^ xviiL 260. 

8. If two of three partners, or other joint promisers of a note, are 
sued, without assigning any cause for the omission of the third, the objection 

Digitized by 



can be taken, only by plea in abatement Wtmlow ▼. Merritt^ n. 127. 
Hughes ▼. lAuUfidd, ttlu. 400. 

9. If the Stat 1887, c. 276, § 12, limits or restricts the general jurisdic* 
tion of magistrates, the want of jurisdiction, arising therefrom, should be 
pleaded in abatement BichardMon v. Bachelder^ xix. 82. 

10. Where a writ against an administrator, for a debt of the intestate, 
contained a direction to the officer, to attach the goods and estate of the 
administrator^ the objection to the form should be taken by plea in abatement, 
and could not be assigned, as error, to reverse the judgment Piper ▼. 
Goodwin^ xxiii. 251. 

11. Where one tenant in common sues alone, for an injury to the common 
property, the objection should be made, by plea in abatement ; it cannot be 
taken on trial, upon the merits. Lotkrop v. Arnold^ xxv. 186. 

(b) By motion^ or otheneise, 

1. A writ will be abated for want of seal, on motion, made long subsequent 
to the return term. Bailey v. Smith, xii. 196. Tibbets v. Shaw, xix. 204. 

2. It is only where it is apparent on the record, that the Court has not juris- 
diction, that the writ or process will be abated on motion. Upham v. Bradley, 
xvii. 428. 

8. The court will not, therefore, on motion, dismiss a petition for partition, 
because it is not therein alleged, that the land lies within the county. Upham 
V. Bradley, xvii. 428. 

4. In questions of divorce, a written motion to dismiss the libel, for causes 
stated, may be equivalent to pleading the same matter in abatement Jones 
V. Jones, XVIII. 308. 

5. A writ will be abated, on motion, for defects apparent on its hce. 
Cook V. Loihrop, xviii. 260. Maine Bank v. Hervey, xxi. 88. CUq>p v. 
Bdch, III. 216. 

See Practice, HI. (a) 1, 3, 4. 

(a) At what timk, pleas or MOTioiit m abatxmxnt must bb 


^b) What will be a waiver of matters is abatemebt. 

(a) At what time, pleas or motions in abatement must be fled or made* 

1. When an objection can be taken, either by plea in abatement, or by 
motion to quash the writ, the motion must be made, if the defendant enter 
a general appearance, within the time, limited for filing a plea in abate- 
ment Trafton v. Rogers, xiii. 815. Maine Bank v. Hervey, xxi. 88. 

2. But there are exceptions to the rule ; as, where the plaintiff withholds 
the writ, until after the time for filing a plea in abatement has elapsed. Maine 
Bank v. Hervey, xxi. 88. 

8. The rules of the District Court must govern its practice ; and if a plea in 
abatement, by its rules, is filed too late, it cannot be received. Maine Bank 
V. Hervey, xii. 88. 

4. A writ or process may be abated, at any time, whenever it becomes ap- 
parent, that, from defects in the writ, or service, or otherwise, the Court has 

Digitized by 


DO jorbdictioa. Maine Bank ▼. JJerrey, xxi. 96. Bailep ▼. Smithy xn. 196. 
TibbeU y. Shaw, xix. 204. 

(b) TFAa/ in7Z ^ a waiver of matters in abatemenU 

1. The omission to take advantage of a want of indorser to a writ, by mo- 
ti(», or plea in abatement, within the time limited by ^ rules, is considered 
a waiver of the objection. Clap v. Balchy iii. 216. Archer v. Noble, 
lu. 418. Stevens v. GetcheU, xi. 448. White v. Perley, xv. 470. 

2. Nonjoinder of co-promtsers should be pleaded in abatement ; and, if 
the defendant plead the general issue, he thereby waives the objection. 
Robinson v. Robinson, x. 240. Min, and School Funds in Dutton v. Ken* 
drickj XII. 381. Fogg v. Virgin, xix. 852. 

8. So, of objection to the sufficiency of the bond, in replevin suits. John* 
son V. Richards, xi. 49. 

4. By pleading the general issue, to an action, brought in the name of a 
corporation, the defendant waives any objection to the legal existence and 
competency of the plaintiffs, to sustain the action. Min, and School Funds in 
Dutton V. Kendrick, xii. 381. Socage Man. Co. v. Armstrong, xvii. 84. 

5. An objecticHi to a writ, that it is made to run against the body of the de- 
fendant, when it is not authorized by law, is waived, by omission to take 
advantage of it, before a general continuance of the action. Cook v. Lothrop, 
xviii. 260. 

6. By pleading the general issue, to an action, brought by a Judge Advo- 
cate, to recover a fine, imposed by a court martial, the defendant waives his 
objection to the right of the plaintiff to recover in that capacity. A denial 
of the plaintiff^s authority should be pleaded in abatement Vose v. Manly, 
XIX. 831. 

7. The right of a plmntiff to sue, in the capacity of a town treasurer, can 
be contested only by plea in abatement The objection is waived, by a plea 
in bar. KeUar v. Savage, xx. 199. 

8. Where an action is entered in Court, without service of a writ, the de- 
fendant may voluntarily appear, and take upon himself the defence ; and, by 
a general appearance, he becomes a pcurty to the suit, is regularly in Court, 
and the Coiurt is authorized to enter that fact upon the record, and, upon 
proper proof, to render judgment against him, unless he can make a legal 
defence, in accordance widi its rules of practice. Maine Bank v. Hervey, 
XXI. 88. 

9. A general appearance cures all defects in the summons and service ; 
but a special one, for the purpose of taking advantage of defects, has not 
that effect But a general appearance will not deprive the defendant of the 
benefit of the rules of Court ; he may still, within the rules, plead any matter 
in abatement Maine Bank v. Hervey, xxi. 38. 

10. An omission to take advantage of matters in abatement, within the 
time, limited by the rules, is not a waiver oC objections to defects in the 
process, which are not amendable, nor, of objections to the jurisdiction of the 
Court Bailey v. Smith, xii. 196. Tibhets v. Shaw, xix. 204. Maine Bank 

V. Hervey, xxi. 38. 

11. An offer to be defaulted for a sum certain, entered on the docket, 
but not accepted, is no waiver of objection to want of seal to the writ in the 
action. Tibhets v. Shaw, xix. 204. 

Digitized by 




1. The rule requiring the defendant, when pleading in abatement, to give 
the plaintiff a better nrrit, applies to the averment of fisu^ts only. Brown v. 
Gordon^ i. 165. 

2. A plea in abatement, that the officer, who served the writ, was, after his 
appointment as deputy sheriff, appointed and commissioned, as a justice of 
the peace, and took the oaths prescribed by the constitution and laws of this 
state, whereby his office of deputy sheriff became vacant, is a bad plea, as it 
does not allege that he mibtcribed the oath of office. Vid. CansttUUion of 
Mainey art, 9, § 1. C/u^[nMn v. Shaw^ lu. 972. 

8. If a plea in abatement, to a wiit of replevin, contain no pra3rer for a 
return of the property replevied, still, a return may be ordered on a written 
suggestion, that the property was attached by the defendant, as an officer, 
and that he is still responsible for its safe keeping. McArthtr v. LanCy rv. 

4. On plea of misnomer of defendant, and issue of fact joined and tried, 
the judgment is peremptory; and, if the verdict be for the plaintiff, the 
jury should assess the damages. Frye v. Hinklty^ xviii. 320. 

5. A plea in abatement, setting forth that no service has been made on one 
of the defendants, without alleging such defendant to be co-promiser, or 
obligor, b bad. Pciten v. Siarrett^ xx. 145. 


1. In a process of foreign attachment, if the principal debtor be absent, the 
cause should be continued, till the third term, before rendition of judgment 
Sprait V. Wehhy i. 825. 

2. Service of process against an absent defendant, by leaving a copy with 
his attorney, is valid, not merely in cases, in which the defendant has prop- 
erty in this state ; but, in all cases, whera the process is by original sum- 
mons. Nelson v. Omaley^ vi. 218. 

See Execution, I. 2. 


See Bills, &c. I. (b) 4. VI. (c) 22, 
Contract, HI. (d) 4, 


Of proving accounts hy account hooks and suppletory oath. See Evi- 
dence, VI. (k) 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 

Of accounts hy Executors^ Administrators^ Guardians^ ^c. See Pbobatb 
Accounts, 1 — 6. 

Digitized by 


ACT or GOO.-— Aonoirs aiib bsmsbiss nf OKirKmjLLy i. 


See Bailment, 17. 

CoKTBACT, VI. 10. Vn. (a) 4, 5. 







1. No action can be maintained for an escape on mesne process, unless the 
plaintiff could have maintained the original action against the prisoner. Rigge 
V. Thacher, i. 68. 

2. Where a town clerk inadvertently gave a defendant a false certificate, 
attested, as a copy of record, in order to support a plea of infancy ; by reason 
of which, the plaintiflf was oUiged to obtain a continuance of his cause to the 
next term, jprior to which, the defendant died ; the cleric was held liable, to 
pay the plamdff damages, occasioned by delay and continuance of the action. 
Maxwell V. Pike^ ii. 8. 

3. On a promissory note, pa^ble to C, " as treasurer'^ of a private asso- 
ciation, ^^ or his successor in said ofiice,^' C. may maintain an action, in his 
own name, the addition of his character being but descriptio personae. 
Clap V. Day, II. 805. 

4. Where a statute gave to a corporation, the right, to " demand and re- 
cover," tolls on logs, and to detain such logs, till the toll should be paid ; held, 
that the corporation might maintain an action for the toll ; the right to detain 
being a cumulative remedy. Bear Camp River Co. v. Woodman^ ii. 404. 

5. The Stat 1821, chap. 59, § 26, authorizing treasurers of towns, 6sc. to 
maintain suits, in their own names, upon the securities therein mentioned, 
does not take away the right of the towns, &c. to sue, as before. Newcastle 
V. BeUard, in. 369. 

6. An attorney, who has collected money for the treasurer of a town, in 
that capacity, is liable for the amount, in an action for money had and re- 
ceived, at Uie suit of the town ; and, in such action, cannot set off a demand 
of his own, against the treasurer, in his private capacity. Newcastle v. BeU 
lard^ ni. 369. 

7. In robberies and larcenies, the civil remedy, in behalf of the party in- 
jured, is suspended, until the criminal prosecution is disposed of ; and no suit 
can be maintained, in his behcdf, till afler the termination of the criminal 
prosecution. Then he may maintain trover, but not assumpsit. Foster v. 
Tucker^ in. 458. Boody v. Keating^ iv. 164. Crowell v. Merrick^ xix. 
892. Belknap v. Milliken, xxiii. 381. 

8. A father may mamtain an action for the seduction of his minor daugh* 

Digitized by 



ter, though she resides out of his family, or, being bound, as an apprentice, 
her master turns her away, or if, with lus consent, she returns to her fisither ; 
if the father has not divested himself of the right to control her person, 
or require her services. Emery v. Gowen^ iv. 33. 

9. An action is maintainable, against a moderator of a parish meeting, 
for refusing a vote from a person, entitled to vote, without proof of malice 
or intent to oppress. Osgood v. Bradley^ vii. 411. 

10. Where a sum of prize money, claimed bv several owners, was deposi* 
ted with an agent, to be kept, until it should be " legally determined,^ to 
which of them it belonged ; no action woidd lie against the stakeholder, until 
the question of property should be first settled, among the claimants, by judg* 
ment of law. Ulmer v. Paine, i. 84. 

11. A person, appointed, on the part of the United States, to superintend 
the building of certain public vessels, under contract, was held, not to be per- 
sonally liable, for requiring the performance of more than was stipulated 
by the contract, through misconstruction of its terms. Webster v. Drink* 
trator, v. 319. 

12. Where the joint owners of a sawmill, excepting P., who refused to 
unite with them for that purpose, rebuilt the mill, and used P^s share, to reim- 
burse themselves, for the expenses of rebuilding it, and refused to give him 
possession, when demanded, until they should be reimbursed, it was held, 
that P. could not maintain assumpsit against them, for use and occupation, 
there having been no contract between them, express or implied. Porter v. 
Hooper, xi. 170. 

13. An action on a promissory note cannot be maintained, unless it be 
brought by one, or under the authority of one, having a legal interest in the 
note. Bradford v. Bucknam, iii. 15. Bragg v. Greenleqf, iiv. 395. 
Ballard v. Greenhushy xxiv. 336. 

14. Thus, where a note had been sold, and indorsed to a third person, the 
payee cannot maintain an action thereon, without the direction or consent of 
the person, to whom the note belongs. Bragg v. Greenleaf, xiv. 395. 

15. One tenant in common, of a personal chattel, may maintain an action 
against his co-tenant, by whom such chattel was received, as a common car- 
rier, and by whose negligence or ccurelessness it was destroyed. Herrin v. 
Eaton, XIII. 193. 

16. Where a chose in action, pending a suit thereon, was assigned to a 
third person, who, afterwards, prosecuted the suit, for his own benefit, sup- 
posing it was sustainable, but failed to recover ; the defendant, in such suit, 
cannot maintain an action against the assignee, for costs or other expenses, 
incurred in the defence. Freeman v. Cram, iiii. 255. 

17. Where the equitable owner of a note, payable to another, recovered 
judgment upon it, in ^e name of the payee, and gave the execution to an 
officer, who took the note of a third person, payable to the judgment creditor, 
for the amoimt, and discharged the execution ; the equitable owner may 
maintain an action on the last note, in the name of the payee. Harriman v. 
Hill, XIV. 127. 

18. On a note, payable to the " treasurer'' of a corporation, " or his suc- 
cessor in office,'' an action may be maintained, in the name of the corpor- 
ation. Wcaren Academy v. Starrett, xv. 443. 

19. If a bond, for the conveyance of land, upon certam conditions, be 
assigned by the obligee, and the obligor, upon the back of the bond, agree, 
under his hand and seal, with the assignee, by name, to extend the time of 

Digitized by 



perfonnance, liinited in the condition of the bond, an action thereon cannot 
be supported by the assignee in his own name. Cole v. Bod/Uh^ xyii. 310. 

20. If the maker of a note, payable in specific articles, expressly promised 
to pay the amount, due thereoa, to an assignee, such assignee may recover 
the same, in an action, in his own name, ^kith y. Berry y xviu. 122. 

21. If a note, against a third person, with a mortgage to secure its pay- 
ment, passed from tlie intestate to donees, as a donatio causa mortu^ the ad* 
ministrator can be but a mere nominal party to a suit upon the mortgage ; and 
has no right to interpose, but for the benefit of the donees, and at their re- 
quest. And, if he bring a suit, the Court has power to restrain him from 
prosecuting it, though the note be justly due. And, if the interest in the note 
and mortgage be found to be in the donees, and they repudiate the suit, the 
Court would not suffer it to be prosecuted, by a meie nonunal party. JSome- 
man v. Stdlinger^ xviii. 225. 

22. An action will lie for damages, sustained, in consequence of holes cut 
through the ice, upon a public river, where there is a traveled way, without 
carelessness or fault on the part of a person traveling there« F^etick v. 
Cmp, XVIU. 433. 

23. Where a town vot^, to loan the surplus revenue, and appointed a 
committee for that purpose, who chose one of their number, to be treasurer, 
and took notes, payable to ^*- £. H., treasurer of the committee of the sur- 
plus revenue,^* and the town subsequently voted, to receive such notes, 
and instructed the said treasurer, to collect the same ; it was held, that the 
suit on such notes should be in the name of the town. Garland v. RcjfnoldSj 
XX. 45. 

24. A corporation may sue, in its own name, on a contract, made to an 
agent, for its benefit Garland v. Reynolds^ xx. 45. 

25. It would seem, that a suit could not be maintained, in the name of an 
agent, who has no interest in the contract. Garland v. Reynolds^ xx. 45. 

26. The holder of a bill, in which others have an interest, may maintain 
a suit on it, in his own name, with the consent of the parties interested. 
Lowney v. PerhanL, xx. 235. 

.27. Under stat 1821, c. 118,^ 17, a father cannot maintain an action 
against a town, for loss of the services of a minor son, in his employ, or, for 
expenses, paid for medical attendance, in consequence of an injury, from 
a defect in a highway, over which he was passing, and, for which the town 
was responsible. Reed v. Belfast^ xx. 246. 

28. Where a note was made payable to J. G., or hearer^ and, af\er the 
decease of J. G., his widow commeneed an action thereon, in her own name, 
as hearer y and subsequently, took out letters of administration, on his estate, 
it was held, that, by so ooing, the commencement of the action, and other 
previous proceedings were legalized ; and, that the action should be sustained ; 
without haying declajped, as administratrix. Gage v. Johnson^ xx. 437. 

U9. An owner of land gave a bond, conditioned for the conveyance of the 
land, at a stipulated price, and the obligee agreed to pay him one half, that he 
should obtain, over and above that amount, en the sale ; the obligee sold 
-the land at an advanced price, and paid over one half of the advance to Ae 
original owner of the land ; and it was held, that no action could be main- 
tained agsunst the owner -flf (he land, for the fraudulent acts of the person 
making the sale, either as partner or agent. Wingate v. Kingy xxiii. 35. 

30. Where the father of a minor son, with his assent, transferred the son's 
services to the plaint for the term of three years, for a consideration paid 

Digitized by 



wholly to the fkther ; and while the minor was, de factOy tfie serrant of the 
pfadntifi* he performed labor for the defendants, at their request, the plaintiff 
may recover the value of such labor. JokMon v. BickneH^ xxiii. 154. 

81. A school district cannot maintain an action, to recover the school mon- 
ey, assigned by the town, for the support of schools, in that district, against 
their school agent, although he has received it from the town. Sanford v. 
Brooksj XXIII. 543. 

82. Where a surveyor of highways, after the assignment of his limits, 
but before any tax bill had been committed to him, repaired a bridge, 
which had been destroyed by a sudden freshet, within his district ; he not 
having applied to the selectmen, for their consent ; it was held, that he could 
not sustain an action against the town, for reimbursement. Moor v. Com* 
vUle, XI. 367. 

33. Where the selectmen of a town, on the application, and for the benefit 
of certain bridge proprietors, laid out a private way ; assessed damages to an 
individual, over whose land it was laid, and took a bond from the proprietors, 
for the payment of said damages, and said road was afterwards accepted 
by the town, at a regular meeting ; it was held, that these proceedings gave 
the individual injured no right of action against the town, to recover the 
amount of his damages. Draper v. Orono^ xi. 422. 

34. An action, to recover expenses, incurred by a fish committee of the 
town of Sullivan, in removing obstructions, occasioned by a mill-dam, against 
the owners, under the stat. 1833, c. 355, ^ 5, must be, in ^ name of the 
whole conmiittee ; and one of the number cannot defeat the action, if pay- 
ment be made to him of his share. Darling v. Simpson^ xv. 175. 

35. Where the plaintiff held a bond from a third person, for the conveyance 
of a tract of land, on the payment of $600, in six months, and assigned to 
the defendant one half of the bond, and received the written promise of the 
latter, to pay him $625, and the defendant, before the expiration of the six 
months, gave the plaintiff one half of the $600, which be promised to pay to 
the obligor, as well as his own half, but neglected so to do, and kept the 
money, and the time expired, without payment, it was held, that the plaintiff 
could not maintain an action for the $625. Knight v. JSeon, xxii. 531. 

36. Where seveml persons were appointed agents, and received funds, to 
erect a meeting house, some of whom Squandered a part of the money ; and 
afterwards all joined in an action against the proprietors, for services and 
moneys expended ; it was held, that one of them could not afterwards main- 
tain a separate action, for the money, by him paid, though it exceeded the 
general balance recovered in the joint action, against the proprietors. Scam-- 
mon V. Saco Meeting hotise, i. 262. 

37. An action cannot be maintained, by one person against another, for 
erecting a public nuisance^ unless it appear, that such person has sustained 
special damage thereby. Low v. Knowlion^ xxvi. 128. 

38. If, by the rightful use of one's own estate, the value of an adjoining 
estate is diminished, the law will not make compensation, by action. Ger^ 
risk v. Union Wharfs xxvi. 384. 

See Husband and Wife, II. 8. HI. 3. 


1. Where money, in a bag, has been deposited merely for safe keeping, no 
action lies for it, till after a special demand. Hosmer v. Clark^ ii. 306. 

Digitized by 



2. If,m the exchange of goods, one party defrauds die other, die injuzed 
party must tender back the goods he received, and demand a return of the 
exchange, before a right of action accrues ; and it is not sufficient, for the 
injured party to send to the other, to come to him and receive his goods ; nor 
is it sufficient, to send back Uie goods received, to be tendered to the 
wrongdoer, by the officer having the writ, before service. Norton v. Youngs 
III. 30. 

8. Where a demand was made, by the payee of a note, upon the maker, 
at eight o^clock, on the morning of the day, on which the note became pay- 
able, and, payment not being made, a suit was immediately commenced 
thereon, the action was adjudged to be prematurely brought, and not sus- 
tainable. iMnt V. AdamSy xvii. 290. 
See Weit I. 5. 


1. It is not competent for a defendant, in a local action, merely with a view 
to avoid the jurisdiction of the court, to show, that, de /wre, the line of the 
county ought to be established in a different place, from that, in which it is 
actually established and known. Hathome v. HenneSy i. 238. 

2. An action of debt, on a foreign judgment, where the plaintiff is not a 
citizen of this state, may be brought in any county in the state. Mitchell 
V. Osgood^ IV. 124. 

3. Replevin must be brought, in the county where the original taking 
was, or where the chattel is detained. And, where the plain tiff *8 horse 
was unlawfully taken, in the county of K., where the plaintiff resided, and 
carried to the county of H., and the plaintiff sued out his writ of replevin, 
in the coun^ of K., which was served on the defendant, in H.,the action 
was sustained. Pease v. Simpson^ xii. 261. 

4. Where, pending a real action, the town, in which the land lies, is set 
off to another county, the action must proceed, and be tried, in the county, 
where it was commenced. BltJce v. Freeman^ xiii. 130. 

5. An action against a town, to recover damages, for an injury, caused 
by defects in the highway, is a transitory action, and may be commenced in 
the county, where the plaintiff lives, if he live within the state. Titus v. 
Frankfort, xv. 89. 

6. Local actions may be brought, before a justice of the peace, in the 
county, where the defendant lives, although the cause of action was, an injury 
done to real estate, in a different county. Morton v. Chase, xv. 188. 

7. The Stat of 21, James I. c. 12, requiring actions against magistrates, for 
acts done, colore officii, to be brought, in the county, in which they live, is 
not in force in this state. Campbell v. Thompson, xvi. 117. 

See Abatement, II. (a) 2. 


1. Where, after the commencement of an action, the defendant was sum- 
moned, as trustee of the plaintiff, and, in that suit, was adjudged trustee ; but, 
having neglected to pay the amount, to the creditor, in the trustee process, 
the plaintiff, afterwanls, paid a part, and thereby reduced it below the amount 
due from the defendant to the plaintiff; it was held, that, though some incon^ 
venience might arise, by thus dividing one debt into several parts ; yet, as the 

Digitized by 



might have avoided this result, by an immediate payment of the 
amount due, as soon as he was charged, the plaintiff might recover the dif- 
ference, between the amount due from the defendant, and the amount due on 
the trustee judgment, if he would release any further claim upon the defend* 
ant Norrii v. Ho//, xvni. 832. 


1. If a judgment creditor extend his execution upon the land of the wife 
of the judgment debtor, he thereby succeeds to the husband^s legal rights to 
the rents and profits of the land, but not to his legal impunity for waste. 
And, if such creditor injure the inheritance, as by cutting and selling the 
trees, an action on the case lies against him, in whH^h the husband must join. 
Bahb V. Perhy, i. 6. 

2. A father may have an action on the case, for the seduction of his 
minor daughter, though she resides out of his family, with his consent, he 
retaining the right to control her. Emery v. Gowen^ iv. 33. 

3. Case, and not trespass, is the proper action for a father, for the o^nce 
of debauching his daughter, if in the house of another person. Claugk v. 
Tenneyy v. ^6. 

4. In trespass on the case, for damages, occasioned by the defendant's care- 
lessness, in setting a fire on his own land, and negligence, in keeping it, the 
onus probandi is upon the plaintiff, to show, that the injury was caused by the 
defendant's negligence or misconduct Bachelder v. HeagaUj xviii. 32. 

5. Where the legislature incorporated a company, with power " to erect, 
maintain, repair and rebuild a milldam, on their own Ixind^ across the head 
of Little River Harbor, with floodgates thereto, at least 15 feet wide, so as to 
admit the passage of gondolas and boate, at high water," it was held, that the 
possession of the dam, and mills, and land, under the authority given, is 
sufficient evidence of title, for defence of an action on the case, for damages 
done to the land of others, by flowage of the water. Parker v. Culler 
Milldam Company ^ xx. 353. 

6. An action on the case may be maintained against the moderator of a 
parish meeting, for refusing the plaintifPs vote, without proof of malice, or 
intent to oppress. Osgood v. Bradley^ vii. 411. 

7. Where the plaintiff and defendant were tenants in common, of a 
salmon fishery, the plaintiff may recover damages, in an action on the case, 
for a continued deprivation of his rights, in being kept out of the occupation 
of any part of the fishery, without having first regained possession, by entry 
or otherwise. Ihmcan v. Sylvester , xxiv. 482. 

8. If an action can be maintained against an aggregate corporation, for a 
malicious arrest, on execution in their favor, under any circumstances, it 
cannot, without showing both malice, and want of probable cause ; and that 
the arrest was wholly groundless, and so known, to the defendants. McLellan 
v. Bank of Cumberland^ xxiv. 566. 

9. An action against two, owners of separate saws, in the same mill, for a 
nuisance, by reason of rubbish, thrown from the mill, to the injury of the 
mills below, in case of the death of one of the defendants, before plea plead- 

Digitized by 



ed, may be pursued against the survivor, for his separate acts. Simpson v. 
Secey^ viii. 138. 

See Joint Tenants, dec. III. 3. 


1. In an indictment, for adultery, a copy of the record of the marriage, 
thou^ admissible in evidence, is not sufficient proof, without evidence of 
identity of the persons. Wedgeu>ood*s case, viii. 75. 

2. On the trial of one, indicted for adultery, bigamy, or lascivious cohab- 
itation, the marriage, wherever solemnized, may be proved by the voluntary 
and deliberate confession of the defendant. But, where the only evidence 
was, that, 20 years before, the defendant, in hiring a house, said, that his 
family consisted of a wife and one child, and, afterwards moved into the 
house, with a woman whom he called. Miss Ham,^^ with whom, as his wife, 
he lived for several years, and then deserted her, it was holden, not to be 
sufficient proof of marriage, in an indictment for adultery. Ham*8 casCy 
zi. 391. 

3. In an indictment for adultery, it is not sufficient proof of marriage, that 
the ceremony was performed, and that cohabitation for a long pericS ensu- 
ed, without showing, that the person, by whom the marriage was solemnized, 
was clothed with the requisite authority for that purpose. State v. Hodg- 
Mkins^ XIX, 155. 

4. On the trial of an indictment against a man for adultery, the husband 
of the particeps criminis is not a competent witness, to prove the act of 
adultery. State v. Welck^ xxvi. 30. 

See Evidence, VI. (h) 13. 


1. A husband, when creditors will not thereby be defrauded, may, volun- 
tarily, and without pecuniary consideration, convey a portion of his estate, in 
trust, for the benefit of, and, by way of advancement to, his wife, and it 
will be sustained, in a court of equity. Spring v. Highly xxii. 408. 

2. If the husband pays for an estate, and directs the conveyance to be 
made to his wife, in absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed 
to be for an advancement to her. Spring v. Hightj xxii. 408. 

Digitized by 


14 AOUfCT, I. 







(b) To THIRD PKR801V8. 


As to agency of masters of vessels^ for their otoners. See Shipping, HI. (b.) 


1. The authority of an agent, in a particular transaction, may be proved, 
by showing, in evidence, under certain limitations, his conduct, dealings, and 
declarations, in other cotemporaneous affairs of the principal, and, with his 
assent, from which a general agency may be inferred. Cobb v. LmsU^ iv. 

2. One of two joint promisees, in a negotiable note, was requested by the 
other, to sell it, which he did ; but the other refused to indorse it, when called 
upon for that purpose ; after which, the seller indorsed it, in their joint names ; 
it was held, that the authority of the seller was revoked, by the refusal, and 
that the purchaser could not maintain an action on the note, as indorsee. 
Lowell V. Reding^ ix. 85. 

3. A. indorsed and delivered a promissory note to B., and took from him a 
receipt therefor, promising to apply the proceeds thereof, when collected, to 
the payment of certain notes, held by C, against A. Held, that the property 
of the note did not pass to C, and, that a subsequent assignment of the note, 
by A., to D., and a revocation of the autliority of B., to apply the proceeds 
to the payment of the note, held by C, before C. had knowledge of, or 
assented to, the appropriation of the proceeds of the note, for his benefit, was 
good, and, that though D. never had had possession of the note, he might 
maintain trover therefor, against the assignees of C, who had obtained pos- 
session thereof. Mitchell v. AUen^ x. 450. 

4. Where a written power of attorney is offered in evidence, to prove the 
authority of one, acting as agent, and rejected, for want of proof of its exe- 
cution, parol evidence is inadmissible, to prove the agency. Hovey v. Dectrij 
xiii. 3L 

5. Where one acts as agent of a corporation, parol testimony is admissible, 
to prove his agency ; and it may be presumed from acts, and the general 
course of business. Maine Stage Co. v. Longley^ xiv. 444. Warren v. 
Ocean Ins, Co. xvi. 439. Badger v. Bank of Cwnherlandy xxn. 428. 

6. Where parol testimony had been introduced, to prove an agency, by the 
acts of the principal and agent, and the party, adducing it, then offered a 
copy of a written authority, which was objected to, by the other party, and 
was withdrawn, and not given in evidence ; this is no cause, for the exclu- 
sion of the parol testimony. Bryer v. Weston, xvi. 26L 

Digitized by 


AGCKCT, I* II. 15 

7. There is no legal objection, to the employment of the mortgager of 
personal property, as the agent of the mortgagee, in managing, and disposing 
of it Cutter v. Capeland^ xviii. 127. 

8. Where an agent sells the goods of his principal, and takes a promissory 
note, payable to himself, the principal may interfere, before payment, and 
forbid it to be made to the agent ; aher which, a payment to the agent will 
hot be good. Pitts v. Mower^ xviii. 361. 

9. And, if the note be not negotiable, and the maker be summoned as trus- 
tee of the agent, and be notified, before disclosure, that the property, pur- 
chased by him, belonged to the principal, who claimed to have the payment 
made to himself; if the maker disregard such notice, in his disclosure, the 
rights of the principal are not impaired, by judgment against the maker, as 
trustee of the agent Pitts v. Mower ^ xviii. 361. 

10. Parol proof of an acknowledgment, by a principal, that an agent had 
authority, to enter into a sealed contract^ obligatory upon his principal, is not 
competent evidence of such authority. Sheplet J. dissenting. Paine v. 
Tiuker.xn. 138. 

11. A paper, signed by the plaintiff, defendant, and several others, by 
which, ** the signers of this do agree, to join and subscribe our equal propor- 
tion of the expenses, attending a dancing school, to be held at H., in D., to 
commence, as soon as a majority of the school may think proper ;" does not 
confer an agency on the plaint^, to act for the defendant, in paying his 
proportion of the expense, nor authorize the plaintiff to recover of the de- 
fendant, for his proportion of such expenses ; there being no other evidence 
of an assent by the defendant Basford v. Brawn^ xxii. 9. 

12. In an action, by an indorsee, against the maker of a note, tlie written 
admission, by the payee, that one, acting as his agent, in indorsing it, had au- 
thority from him, for that purpose, is not competent evidence, to prove the 
agency. Clark v. Pedbody, xxii. 500. 

13. The cashier of a bank is the regularly authorized agent of the bank ; 
and, whatever is done by him, in that capacity, within the scope of his duties, 
k the act of the bank. Bumham v. Webster^ xix. 232. 

14. Where the authority of an agent is by parol, and for a specified pur- 
pose, it may be proved by his testimony, unless he is otherwise disqualified. 
Crocker v. Appletonj xxv. 131. 

See Deed, I. (a) 1, 2, 7. (b) 2, 4, 6. 


1. A supercargo cannot bind his principals, as acceptors of a bill of ex- 
change, drawn by himself, without express authority from them, to that effect, 
communicated to, and relied upon, at the time, by the party, who received 
the bill. Scott v. McLellan, ii. 199. 

2. The consignee of goods, for sale, may incur upon them such expenses, 
as a prudent man would judge necessary, in the discreet management of his 
own a&irs. Colhy v. Merrill^ vi. 50. 

3. Thus, where the owner of a vessel conveyed her to his creditor, 
to be sold by him to the best advantage, and, af\er payment of his demand, 
the surplus to be paid over to himself; and the creditor caused her to be 
sold, by a ship broker, the broker^s commissions were held to be a reason- 
able charge, which the owner was bound to allow. Colley v. Merrill^ vi. 50. 

4. An agent, having discretionary power to adjust a demand, settled it, by 

Digitized by 


16 AGtNCT, n* 

taking a negotiable note, payable to his principal, which be afterwards 
pledged as collateral security, for a debt of his own. Held, that he thereby 
exceeded his authority ; and that the pledgee was liable, in trover, for the 
note, after demand and refusal. But payments, made to the agent, before 
notice of the revocation of his authority, were good. Jonet v. Farley^ vi. 

5. A father conveyed his farm to his son, reserving a life estate to himself, 
and taking from his son a bond, for the payment of the father^s debts, for 
his support, during his life, for a horse, oxen, and farming tools, to use at 
his pleasure ; and to deliver, and account for, to the father, oh demand, cer- 
tain enumerated neat cattle and sheep, belonging to the father, or others, as 
good as those. The son, thenceforward, had the chief management of the 
fkrm and property for three years, when the father died ; after which, the son 
sold the neat cattle, so enumerated. Held, that if the son was attorney to 
the father, his authority was not coupled with an interest ; and, by its terms, 
was to be executed, only in his lifetime, and ceased at the death of the ^oUher. 
Staples V. Bradbury^ Yin. 181. 

6. A sheriff, liable for certain defaults of a deputy, and being insolvent, 
delivered over to his own sureties, the deputy's official bond, with authority to 
put it in suit, and apply the proceeds to their own indemnity. They 
appointed one of their number, as agent, to defend suits against them, and to 
pay such demands, as he might judge advisable. The deputy's bond was 
put in suit, and judgment rendered for the whole penalty, and execution issued 
for a lesser sum, being the anK)unt of damages, for existing breaches. Upon 
payment of this lesser sum, by a friend of the deputv, to the agent, the latter 
assigned to him the judgment, designated only by the names of the parties, 
and the term at which it was rendered ; Held, that the authority, granted 
by the sheriff, did not authorize a discharge of the whole penalty of the 
bond, unless it was necessary for their indemnity ; and, that the agent had no 
sufficient authority, to assign the judgment Adams v. Gotdd^ viii. 438. 

7. Where an agent, appointed by parol, paid the money of his principal, 
to a creditor of the latter, m part payment, but took the creditor's receipt, and 
promise, in writing, to account for the money to the agent himself, and the 
creditor, afterwcurds, received the whole amount of his original debt, from the 
debtor : — held, in an action by the principal, against the creditor, to recover 
back the sum, thus paid by the agent, that the agent was a competent 
witness, to prove his appointment, the extent of his authority, the terms of 
the contract with the creditor, and that his agency was known to the latter ; 
held, also, that this testimony was not inadmissible, as contradicting the terms 
of a valid, written contract ; but, it went to show, that the writing was of no 
force, when made, for want of authority in the agent, to make it. Judkins 
V. Lancey^ viii. 4^. 

8. An authority, as general agents is sufficient, to enable one to make an 
entry into lands, for his principsd. Richards v. Folsom^ xi. 70. 

9. In case of a tender, made to a clerk, in the plaintiff's store, for goods 
purchased there, such clerk has authority to waive any objection to the valid- 
ity of the tender, on the ground of its bemg in bank bills, and not in specie. 
noyt V. Byrnes^ xi. 475. 

10. Where the owner of a stock of goods mortgaged them, to secure the 
plaintiffs from certain liabilities, as his sureties, with a stipulation, that the 
mortgager should retain possession of the goods, until default of payment of 
the notes, on which they were liable, and, " should pay over, and account 
for the proceeds of all sales of said goods, to the mortgagees, to be applied 

Digitized by 



in payment of the notes, or, directly, tp apply said proceeds to the payment of 
said notes, at the discretion of the mortgagees ;^' it was held, that he was 
the agent of the plaintifis, and, that his power, to sell the goods, may be im- 
plied, from his covenant to account to the mortgagees, for the proceeds of 
sales. Abbott v. Goodwin^ xx. 406. 

11. Where a large number of persons, by an agreement, in writing, asso- 
ciated together, to form a company, for the establishment of a store, for 
English and West India goods, to be conducted under the direction of a 
boaxd of managers, a part of whose duty was, ^ to provide a store for the com- 
pany ,^^ the managers have power, to purchase a store, and land, whereon to 
place it, and to give the notes of the company for payment of the connd* 
eration. Beeman v. Whitneif^ xz. 413. 

12. If a committee be chosen by a town, ^ to lay out, and let the remain- 
der of said road to the lowest bidder,^' their agency does not extend, to 
authorize them to accept the work, in behalf of the town, nor to waive per- 
formance of the contract, according to its terms. And, if a committee of 
duree had the power, one of them, without authority from the others, cannot 
waive performance of any of the terms of the contract AUen v. Cooper^ 
XXII. 13a 

13. To authorize the conveyance of land, by attorney, it is not necessary, 
that a power, to convey land, should be expressly delegated ; it may be im- 
parled by impticati<Hi. Marr y. Given^ xxiii. 56. 

14. In the construction, to be given to a power of attorney, the intentions 
of ^ parties are to be regarded. Mmr v. Criven^ xxiic. 55. 

15. The attorney was duly authorized, " to bargain, sell, grant, release and 
convey, to such person, and for such sum of money, as to my said attorney 
shall seem most for my advantage ; and, upon such sale, convenient and pro- 
per deeds, with such covenants, general or special, of warranty, quitclaim, 
or otherwise, as, to my said attorney, shall seem expedient, in due form of 
law, 88 my deed, to mcdce, seal, deliver, and acknowledge;^' but the power 
was silent, as to what was to be sold or conveyed ; and the attorney con- 
veyed land ; — it was held, to be the intention of the parties, to authorize a 
sale and conveyance of all the rights of the grantor in any real estate. Marr 
V. GicefL, XXIII. 55. 

16. The ^neral agent of a town or plantation has authority, to employ 
counsel, to- defend an action, brought against such town or plantation. SmowU 
ton V. Plantation No. 4, xiv. 20. 

17. Where one was constituted agent, of the owners of a paper mill, " to 
make sale of the paper, and collect stock,^ and he purchased a bale of cloth, 
on credit, intending to sell it at a profit, for the common benefit, m exchange 
for paper rags, and gave therefor, a promissory note, in the company^s 
name ; held, that he exceeded his authority, and that the owners were not 
bound. Thonuu v. Harding^ viii. 417. 

See Evidence, VIL (c) 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 19. 


1. If an attorney, having only parol authcnrity, execute a b(md, in the name 
of his principal, and, afterwards, be regularly constituted, by power of attor- 
ney, bearing date prior to the bond, this is a subsequent ratification, which 
ghres validity to the bond. MiUiken v. Coombs, i. 843. 

2. A parol ratification is not sufficient, to give validity to a deed, made 


Digitized by 


18 A6EXCT9 uu 

by an agent, not having authority, under seal, to bind his principal. SUison 
T. Pollen, 11. 358. 

3. Where a note was indorsed, and a suit commenced thereon, in the name 
of a person, who was absent, and had paid no consideration therefor, and 
had no knowledge of the indorsement to him, nor of the commencement of 
the suit ; but, after his return, he sustained the suit, and claimed the note as 
his own ; it was holden, that this subsequent assent was a ratification of the 
prior transactions, and, that the objection, that he had no interest in the note, 
when the suit was commenced, could not be sustained. Marr v. Pbtmmer^ 
m. 73. 

4. Implied ratifications extend only to such acts of the agent, as are known 
to the principal, at the time. Thamdike v. Godfretf, in. ^9. 

5. The plaintiff and defendant were joint owners of a quantity of boards, 
which the plaintiff shipped for sale, to a distant port, to his own factors, who 
sold them, on credit, in the usual manner, taking therefor a note, pajrable to 
themselves, and passed the amount to the credit of the plamtiff, who was their 
debtor, and who paid over half the proceeds of sale to the defendant ; and 
the purchaser became insolvent, before the maturity of his note ; after which, 
the factors and the plaintiff settled a further account, in which no notice was 
taken of this bad debt, nor was it charged back to the plaintiff, till the set- 
tlement of a third account, more than eight months af\er the maturity of the 
note ; at which setdement, a balance, due to the factors, was carried to a 
new account, and still remains unpaid ; and the plaintiff gave no notice of 
these facts to the defendant, till some time afler the last of them had trans- 
pired ; held, that the acceptance of the moiety, originally paid over to the 
defendant, was a ratification of the acts of the plaintiff, in making the ship- 
ment and consignment for sale ; that the latter was justly charged with the 
whole sum by his factors ; and might recover back from the defendant the 
moiety, he had paid over to him. Rogers v. White, vi. 193. 

6. Where a general agent, without special authority, makes an entry into 
the lands of his principal, the bringing a suit, by the principal, to avail him- 
self of the rights acquired under such entry, is a sufficient ratification. 
Richards v. Folsom, xi. 70. • 

7. The plaintiff intrusted a note to the defendant, to collect, taking his 
receipt, promising to collect, or to return it The defendant intrusted it to 
another, for the same purpose, taking a similar receipt, by whom the note 
was lost The plaintiff, afterwards, refused to dischai^ the defendant, but 
received from him the latter receipt, saying that he calculated to take further 
advice, and left it with an attomejr, from whom it was afterwards demanded 
by the defendant, claiming it as his own. Held, in an action of trover, that 
here was sufficient evidence of ratification, by the plamtiff, of the defendant's 
acts, to sustain a verdict, rendered by a jury, in favor of the defendant. 
Freeman v. Sioett, xi. 79. 

6. If an inhabitant of a school district, without being regularly authorized, 
make a tender to a person, having a claim against it, and the district, in 
defence of an action, subsequently brought against them, upon such claim, 
plead, and rely upon, the tender, this would be a ratification, equivafent to a 
previous authority. Kincaid v. Brunswick, xi. 188. 

9. If a contract be not under seal, the authority of one person, to contract 
f(Mr others, may be proved, by their subsequent recognitk>n. Emerson v. 
Coggswell, XVI. 77. 

10. If, without legal authority, an entry be made, by one, acting as an 

Digitized by 




attorney to a bank, and, afterwards, the fact, that the entry had been made, 
is recited in an agreement, executed between the bank and the assignees of 
the mortgager, this is a sufficient mtification and adoption of the act of the 
attorney, to make it the act of the bank. Cults v. York Manufacturing Co.^ 
xviii. 190. 

11. Where goods are purchased by one, assuming, without authority, to 
be the agent of another, if the latter, knowingly, receiyee the goods, so pur- 
chased, as his own property, this will amount to a ratification of the agency. 
Hastings r. Bangor Uause^ xnii. 4d6. 

12. But, if he denies the authority of the pretended agent, to act for him, 
when informed of the facts, and, afterwards, m pursuance of a prior engage- 
ment, to receive goods of that description, does receive them, as the prop- 
erty of the assumed agent, in payment of a debt, due from him, this will not 
amount to a ratification ; nor has the seller a right of action against him, as 
the original purchaser. Hastings v. Bangor Housty xviii. 486. 

13. Where a town agent, without authority from the town, agreed to give to 
the defendant a good and sufficient deed of a school lot, " provided, the town 
get liberty from the legislature to sell the same," if not, to give back certain 
notes, given for the consideration, or to pay $4ClO, as damage for ncm-perfor- 
mance, and the town, without procuring authority from the legislature to sell, 
afterwards voted, that the doings of their agent, in relation to the school lot, be 
ratified and confirmed, so for, as related to the taking and continuing posses- 
sion, by the purchaser, and the giving the note to the treasurer, and no fur- 
ther, and that the agent give a good and sufficient deed, pursuant to the con- 
tract ; and said agent did tender a deed, which was refused ; held, that the 
town, not having obtained authority from the legislature to sell, their votes 
were no sufficient ratification of the contract, made by the agent, and there- 
fore, the note, given by the defendant, was without consideration and void. 
Wolcott V. Strout, XIX. 132. 

14. The ratification, by the payee of a note, of the indorsement thereof, 
made by one, assuming to act as his agent, but without previous authority, 
can operate, only, as an indorsement, made at the time of ratification. Clark 
V. Peabodjf^ xxii. 500. 

15. A master of a vessel cannot, by virtue of his power, as such, bind the 
owners, in a purchase of a cargo ; but, if the owners receive the vessel from 
the master, with a cargo on board, knowing it to have been purchased on 
credit, for the benefit of the vessel and owners, and send the same to another 
port, under charge of another master, for the purpose of selling the cargo, 
this is a sufficient ratification of the doings of the first master, to render the 
owners liable to those, who fiirmshed the cargo, for the price thereof. Lyman 
V. Redman^ zxiii. 289. 

16. In an action against a town, for damages, for an injury, occasioned by 
fi defect in a highway, if the defendants appear in court, by their selectmen, 
and not otherwise, as their agents, it is not competent for them, by the same 
agents, appearing by virtue of no additional powers, to question their agency. 
Strout V. Durham^ xxiii. 483. 

17. If a bank claims the benefit of a contract, made, in its behalf, by the 
cashier, without authority, this is a ratification. Medomak Bank v. Curtis^ 
zziv. 36. 

18. If a shipper of goods agrees upon the price of the freight, with the 
general agent of the owners of the vessel, having reason to know, that such 
agent was transcending his authority, such contract will not be considered as 

Digitized by 


M AexKCTi nr. v. 

ratified by the principal, by an oimssion to give notice of ditaffirmaace of it, 
until he can obtain complete knowledge, as to how it came to be made, and 
how it would affect his interests. Bcamard ▼. Whuler^ Sf Wkeder v. Bar* 
nard^ xxiv. 412. 

19. Where the plaintiff sent a note, by an agent, with authority, only, to 
receive a sum of money thereon, and return the note, wiA the mooey, but he 
received the money, and gave up the note, in exchange for other papers ; and 
carried the money and papers to the plaintiff, who took the money and was 
displeased with the papers, saying, ^'' she was cheated out of her money ;^ 
this was no ratification of the acts of the agent But ^e must return the 
papers to the defendant, before commencing an action against hira. Orookar 
V. Appleton^ xxv. 131. 

20. If a person knows, that another has acted as his agent, without authori- 
ty, or, being agent, has exceeded his authority, and avails himself of advan- 
tages, derived from such acts, he will be leguded as ratifying it. But, ^lis 
will not be the case, when the knowledge, diat the agent has exceeded his 
authority, was received so late, that the employer could not repudiate the 
acts, without cssentinl loss. Bryant v. Moort^ xxvu 84. 


1. Where a contract or deed is executed, in behalf of the gpvemment, by 
a duly authorized puhlie agents and the fact so app^urs, notwithstanding the 
agent may have affixed his own name and seal, it is the contract or deed of 
the government, and not of the agent Stinch/kld v. Little, i. 281. 

2. But the agent or attorney of a private person or corporation, to bind the 
principal, and make the mstrument his deed, must set to it the name and 
seal of ^ principal, or constituent, and not merely his own. Stinchfidd 
V. lAtile, I. 231. ElwU v. Shaw, i. 339. 

3. Where one, residing in a foreign country, authorized an agent here» 
to sell lands, and give deeds, in his name, such power became extinct, at the 
decease of the principal ; and a deed, made in his name, by the attorney, 
after the death of the principal, but before arrival of the intelligence thereof, 
was holden, to be merely void ; and an action lies against the attorney, to 
recover back the money paid. Harper v. Little, ii. 14. 

4. The law does not require, that an agent should make known his agency 
to others, to make his acts effectual, in behalf of his principal. In case a ven- 
dor is agent for a vendee, of personal property, his failure to do so, may be 
evidence, to the jury, of fraud, but not conclusive. Cutter v. Copeland, 
XVIII. 127. 

See Deed, I. (b.) 2, 4. 


1. If an agent purchase goods, on his own credit, without disclosing his 
principal, to whose use the goods are applied ; the principal, being afterwards 
discovered, is liable to the seller, for the price of the goods. Upton v. Grajfy 
11. 373. 

2. A principal is not answerable for the fraud of a special agent Sher^ 
wood V. Martoiek, v. 295. 

3. Where the owner of a horse delivered it to a private agent, to sell, for 
the owner^s benefit, and the agent sold it to his o^vn creditor, in payment of 

Digitized by 


AftENCT, ¥• 91 

his own debt ; it was held, that the owner^t property was not thereby dhreeted, 
and that he might reclaim it, even of a subecKiuent purchaser, rartons v. 
Wetiby Yiu. 38. 

4. The inhabitants of a county are not liable, to pay the expense of build* 
ing a road, under a contract with a committee of the court of sessions ; the 
remedy for the contractors and builders is, by warrant of distress, against 
the towns, through which the road passes, according to the statute. Emert<m 
V. CowUy of WaikingUm^ ix. 96. 

5. A. authorized B., his agent, to sell certain logs, and expressly instructed 
him, that in every event, the logs were to remain tbo property of the principal, 
until paid for, or amply secured. B. sold, permitting the purchaser to take 
possession of the logs, but, with an agreement, that the principal should have 
a lien upon them, till paid for. Held, that the sale was not binding upon 
the principal, inasmuch as the supposed lien, without possession, was but an 
imperfect security, and not what was contemplated by the principaL Cowan 
V. AdwM^ X. 374. 

6. If an agent draw a lull, in behalf of his priDcipal, on a shorter time, 
than his instructions permit, the principal may discJaim the transaction ; but, 
if he claim the prq>erty, for which the bill was drawn, he cannot deny the 
agency. Newhall v. Dmdap^ xit. 180. 

7. The principal is not bound by acts of his agent, not within the scope 
of his authicNrity. ThamoM v. Harding, vui. 417. 

8. A postmaster is liable for the acts of one, whom he permitted to have 
the care of the mail, in his office, not having be^i sworn. Bi$hop v. WU* 
Kamtan, xi. 495. 

9. If a shipper of goods, on freight, contracts with the general agent of the 
owner of the vessel, for the price, having reason to know, that it was lower 
tiian the agent was authorized to contract, he cannot claim to have the terms 
of the contract fulfilled, as against the principaL Barnard v. Wkeder^ xxiv. 

10. Corporations are subject to the same laws, in respect to the acts of 
tiieir agents, which are applied to individuals. Frankfort Bank v. Johnson, 
XXIV. 490. 

11. A contract, not under seal, to convey an interest in real estate, upon 
the performance of certain conditions, made by an authorized agent of the 
proprietor of the estate, will bind the principal. Dyer v. Bumkam, xxv. 

12. If it appear, from the whole instrument, that the object and intent of it 
are to bind the principal, and not merely the agent, courts will give it that 
construction, however informally it may have been expressed. D^ v. JB^im* 
Aan, XXV. 9. 

13. Where the limitation of the authority of an agent, whether general or 
special, is public, or known to those, who deal with him, they are bound to 
regard it, otherwise the principal is not bound. But, if the limitation be pri- 
vate, and the agent be acting within the scope of his authority, or for the 
accomplishment of his object, the principal will bo bound, though the agent 
should violate his secret instructions, nryant v. Moore, xxvi. M. 

See Actions, dec. I. 29. 
AssuBfPSiT, V. (a) 3. 
Evidence, VH. (c) 10, 14, 19. 

Digitized by 


99 AOfeKCT, n. 


(a) To THBIR PRIirciPALS. 


(a) To their principals, 

1. Where an agent, in this state, of a foreign administrator, receives 
money, belonging to the estate, the administrator may maintain an action 
against him for the money, without taking out letters of administration here. 
Barrett v. Barrett^ viii. 346. 

2. In an attempt to charge an agent for negligence, in not collecting, or se* 
curing a debt, the jury may inquire, whether he has been guilty of negli- 
gence, to the prejudice of the principal. An omissicxi to do that, winch 
would have been fruitless, can, in no sense, be denominated negligence. 
FoUom V. Musseifj x. 297. 

3. A town agent is not liable to the town, for not resisting the recovery of 
judgment, on a claim against the town, which the town had instructed the 
selectmen to pay, even if the claim could have been successfully resisted. 
Pittston V. Clarke zv. 460. 

4. Wliere a town, at a legal meeting, voted, in pursuance of an article in the 
warrant, to invest the surplus revenue in bank stock, and chose an agent for 
that purpose, who disposed of the money, as he was authorized by the vote ; 
he was held to be cQscharged from all re^xMisibility. Cornish v. Pease^ 
xiz. 184. 

5. If an agent sells property of his principal, and, in payment to him 
therefor, indorses a note, which was not taken for the property sold, such 
agent cannot set up want of consideration, in defence of an action against 
hun as indorser. Crocker v. Getchell^ xziii. 392. 

See EviDBNCB, VIL (b) 6. 

(b) LiahUitif of agents to third persons. 

1. If an agent describe himself, in a deed, or contract, as acting for, or in 
behalf of, or as attorney for, the principal, or as trustee, or committee, to 
contract for a corporation, if he do not bind the principal, but set his own 
name and seal, such expressions are but designatio personaCy the deed is his 
own, and he is personally bound. Stinchfield v. Little^ i. 231. 

2. Where an agent of one, residing in a foreign country, in pursuance of 
a regular power of attorney, conveyed lands, aJter the decease of the prin- 
cipal, but before he received news of his death, such deed is not the deed of 
the attorney, and he is not liable thereon, in his private capacity. Harper v. 
LittlCj II. 14. 

3. So, if an agent give a deed for the principal, never having had authority 
from him, under seal, if the deed do not contain apt words to bind the agent. 
SteUon V. Patteny ii. 358. 

4. The common law, that an agent, acting in the name of his principal, 
does not bind himself, is changed by stat. 1821, c. 59, <^ 8, as respects in- 
dorsers of writs. How v. Codman^ iv. 79. 

5. An agent, appointed on the part of the United States, to superintend the 
execution of a contract, for the building of certain public vessels, is not 
personally liable, though, through misconstruction of its terms, he require 

Digitized by 



performance of more than was in fact required by the contraet Weh$ter 
V. Drinkwater, v. 819. 

6. The nile^ that an agent binds himself, and not his principal, unless he 
use the name of the principal, is applicable, only, to sealed instruments. 
In contracts, not under seal, if the agent intend to biikl his principal, and not 
himself, it is sufficient, if it appear, in such contract, that he acts as agent 
Andrew* v. EsUt^ xi. 267. 

7. Where three persons, in writing, promised, ^^ in behalf" of a certain 
schoc^ district, to pay a specified sum for the erection of a schoolhouse, sign- 
ing as ^^ a committee," and being duly authorized by the district, to make 
such contract, they did not render themselves personally liable. Andrew* v. 
EUe*^ XI. 267. 

8. If one draw a bill, in his own name, without stating, that he acts as 
agent, unless acting for the government, he is personally liable ; even though 
he directs it to be paid out of a particular fund ; and, though the 'person, in 
whose favor it is drawn, knows the drawer was but an agent JSewhall v. 
Ihadap, xiv. 180. 

9. Where three persons, members of an unincorpcMrated association for 
building a parsonage house, gave a note to the plaintiff, as trustees of said 
house," they were held personally liable, there having been no plea in abate- 
m^Qt, for nonjoinder of others. Chick v. TVevett^ xx. 462. See also Fogg 
V. Virgin^ xix. 352. 

10. By the usage of trade, agents and factors, acting for persons, resident 
in a fq^ign country, are held personally liable for contracts, made by them, 
for their employers, though they fully disclose, at the time, the character, in 
which they act McKenzie v. Neviui^ xxii. 138. 

11. It is also a general rule, that, where agents employ sub-agents, the 
latter are clothed with the same rights, and incur the same obligations, and 
are bound to the same duties, in regard to their immediate employers, as if 
they were the sole and real principals. McKenzie v. Nevitu^ xxii. 138. 

12. If a foreigner has employed an agent to procure insurance on his ves- 
sel, and the agent employ a sub-agent for the purpose, and his lien be remov- 
ed, by pa3rment, the owner may bring his action directly against the sub- 
asent, and recover the money, received by him, on account of the policy. 
McKenzie v. NeviUSj xxii. 138. 

13. Where one has performed labor for another, relying on his promise for 
payment, the latter cannot relieve himself from liability, by showing in de- 
fence, that he was acting as agent for others ; not having previously made 
known his agency. Keen v. Sprague^ iii. 77. 

14. Where the makers of a note describe themselves, in the body there- 
of, as trustees of a voluntary association, but affix their own names, they are 
personally responsible. Fogg v. Virginj xix. 352. 

15. Where certahi individuals raised money by subscription^ for the erec- 
tion of an Academy, and held a meeting, and chose one of their number as 
agent, to procure materials, employ woriunen, &c it was held, that in em- 
ploying workmen, 6cc, he bound all the subscribers, including himself, and 
not himself alone. Robinson v. Robinson^ x. 240. 


1. If a factor, to meet drafts of his principal, sell the goods of the princi- 
pal, on credit, and take the note of the purchaser, payable to himself, which 

Digitized by 


31 AGENCT, Til. 

note he indorses and sells for money, to pay such drafts, and the purchaser, 
becoming insolvent, before the maturity of the note, the factor pays the 
amount of die note to the indorser ; he may recover thk amount, in an 
action against the principal Gredy v. BartlM^ i. 172. 

2. Where divers casks of lime were consigned and delivered to a ship- 
master for sale, duly inspected and branded, and represented by the 
owner as good, and sold by the master as such, but whkh proved to be 
worthless, and the master was sued by the purchaser, and gave notice thereof 
to the owner, and faithfully defended the suit, but was obliged to reqxmd to 
the purchaser, in damages ; it was held, diat he might rccover, of the owner 
of the lime, the amount recovered against himself, with all costs and expen- 
ses, necessarily incurred, in the defence. Henderson v. &vey, ii. 139. 

8. Wherc an agent draws a bill on his principal, in such manner, as to 
make himself liable, yet, as between them, he may show, that it was for 
the benefit of the principal Newhall v. DuiUap^ ziv. 180. 

4. Where an agent has a lien upon property, for his security, the general 
owner cannot maintain replevin against him, for it, until the lien is discharged. 
NewkM v. Ihmliq), toy. 18a 

5. A promise of indemnity, to an agent, is implied, from his employment 
as such. Chwer v. Emery^ xviii. 79. 

6. If an agent, by order of his principal, commits a trespass upon the pro- 
perty of another, acting without suspicion of wrong, he has a claim against 
the principal for reimbursement, for damages and expenses, to which he has 
been subjected, in consequence thereof. Gotoer v. Emery^ xviii. 79. 

7. Wherc an agent sells the goods of his principal, the latter may sue in 
his own name, on the contract of sale, except, when it is extinguished, by 
taking a negotiable note ; the law rcgardinff die express contract, made with 
the agent, as made with the principal, and not extinguished, by a note not 
negotiable. Pitts v. Mower ^ xviii. 861. Edmond v. Caldwell y xv. 840. 

8. A general agent of the owners of a township of land, to take carc of 
their interests therein, should protect and preser\'e their estate, and its title, 
watch over and secure their rights, and keep them informed of his acts and 
proceedings ; and, whilst his agency continues, cannot be permitted to deny 
his agency, as to one particular lot, nor acquire a right to betterments there- 
on, by a possession thereof, for six years or more. Comings v. Stuart^ xxii. 

9. And, if such agent enter upon a lot, and make improvements, and con* 
tinue in possession, more than six years, and the owners, without knowledge 
of his doings, convey the lot to another person, who had knowledge of the 
improvements, the agent cannot enforce his claim, for betterments, against 
such purchaser. Comings v. Stuart^ xxii. 110. 

10. Where A., for a consideration received from B., *^ sells and delivers to 
C, the agent and attorney of said B.,'* certain personal property, with power 

/In C. to take possession thereof, and sell, for the pa3rment of the debt due 
to B. ; and, with a condition, that the convejrance should be void, on repay- 
ment of the c<Hisideration received from B., the ownership of the goods is in 
C, and B. cannot maintain trover therefor. Haskell v. Jones^ xxiv. 222. 
See Assumpsit, I. 26. 

Lien, I. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 

Digitized by 




As to their Hability. See Ante, VL 

1. Where goods are consigned to a factor to sell, generally, and be sells 
them, on a credit, to a merchant in good standing, who becomes insolvent, 
before the time of payment ; it is the lose of the principal, and not of the 
factor ; though the factor liad taken a note for the price, payable to himself, 
and had not disclosed, to his principal, the name of the purchaser. Chreely 
V. Bartfeti, i. 172. 

2. The contract created by a sale of goods, by a factor, whether he acts 
under a del credere commission, or not, is between the buyer and the 
owner, and not between the buyer and the factor ; and a purchaser from such 
hctor^ on credit, cannot be charged, as his trustee, in a foreign attachment, 
after he has been notified by the owner, beyond the amount of the lien of 
the factor, for his commissions. Titcomb v. Seaoer^ iv. 542. 

3. The principle, that a delivery of goods to one, to be returned, or 
something else in their stead, at the option of the receiver, constitutes a sale, 
does not apply to factors and agents. Blood v. Palmer j xi. 414. 

4. When payment is not made at the time, a sale, by a factor, creates a 
contract between his principal and the purchaser ; and, after notice of the 
claim of the principal, the purchaser is bound to pay him. Edmand v. Cold" 
i«tf,xv:340. *~ '^ 


1. Where goods were leA with a factor, for sale, and he had long neg- 
lected to render any account, make any remittance, or give information of 
his proceedings, though, by common diligence, he might have sold them, he 
was held not to be chargeable, on a count, for goods sold and delivered 
alone ; but should be declared against, as a factor, for the proceeds of sale. 
Selden v. Beale, in. 178. 

2. It is not competent for a plaintiff, by his books, and oath, to prove, that 
the defendant is lus agent ; the delivery of goods to him in that capacity ; 
and an agreement to sell and account. Dunn v. Whitney^ x. 9. 

3. A. purchased a quantity of goods of B., and gave his draft on C, at 
thirty days, for the amount, which was protested for non-acceptance. In 
an acticm, by B. against C, to recover the price, A. was held incompetent, as 
a witness, for B., to prove, that, in making the purchase, he acted as agent 
of C. Hewitt V. Lovering, xii. 201. 

4. Parol testimony is inadmissible to prove an agency, after a written power 
of attorney had been offered and rejected, for want of proper proof of its 
execution. Hovey v. Deane^ xiii. 31. 

5. The acts of an authorized agent, in the transaction of business, are the 
acts of his principal ; and may be proved in the same manner. Lanib v. 
Barnard^ xvi. 3G4. 

6. It seems, that an action cannot be maintained, in the name of an agents 
who has no interest in the contract. Garland v. Rey lolds^ xx. 45. 

7. Proof, that a person was agent of an incorporated company, and had ' 
charge of the business and property of the company," at a certain place, is 
not, alone, sufficient evidence, tliat such person was authorized to draw a bill, 
or note, in behalf of the company. Atkinson v. St, Croix Manufacturing 
Co., XXIV. 171. 

See Evidence, III. (c) 5. 

Digitized by 


96 ALIEN. ALIIfOinr.— -AMBNDiniNT, I. 


1. An alien gains no settlement, by residence in a plantation, at the time 
of its mcorporation into a town. Jefferson v. Litchfield^ i. 196. ThomoM- 
ton V. Fffia/Anten, xiii. 159. 

2. A widow, who was an alien, and who, with her husband, at the time 
of his death, was domiciled in a foreign country, cannot come into this state, 
and, by reason of her husband^s having died wiUiout issue, claim the half of 
his real estate, situated here. Potter v. Titcomb^ xxii. 300. 

8. An alien acquires no life estate in the lands of his wife, by marriage ; 
and a levy thereupon, as the estate of the husband, gives no title to the ci^- 
itor. Mussey v. rierre^ xziv. 559. 

See Pauper, L (b) 7. (c.) 5, 10. 

See Divorce, 16. 





For amendment of verdicU^ See Verdicts, ii. 


1. The absence of a defendant from the state does not limit the authority 
of a court, to grant amendments of a record. His change of domicil can- 
not oust tfie court of its jurisdiction. Neither is notice to the defendant's 
attorney indispensable ; it is entirely within the discretion of the court. Hall 
y. Williams, x. 278. 

2. The granting, or refusing to grant, amendments, in matters legally 
amendable, is within the discretion of the court of common pleas, and does 
not furnish ground for exceptions. Wyman v. Dorr, iii. 183. Clapp v. 
Balch, III. 216. Foster v. Haines, xiii. 307. NewaJl v. Hussey, xvin, 
249. Carter v. Thompson, xv. 464. 

3. But, if an amendment be permitted, which the law does not authorize, 
the party aggrieved may except. Newall v. Hussey, xviii. 249. 

4. The statute, 1834, c. 121, § 45, gives no authority to the S. J. C. to 
make an amendment of the record of another court, brought before it by 
writ of error. Hohbs v. Staples, xix. 219. 

Digitized by 



& Ezoeptioiis to an amendment, made by leare of court, must be present- 
ed to the court granting the same, before its adjournment SMerland ▼. 
Kitlridge^xoi. ^4. 

6. The court will not, in a qui tarn action, allow an amendment, which had 
been denied by a judge at nisi prius^ where injustice would be done thereby 
to a defendant, or he would be subjected to liabilities, from which he would 
otherwise be discharged. Campbell v, RoMkins^ xi. 103. 

7« Where an action has been commenced for goods sold, on accoimt 
annexed to the writ, it is not allowable to amend, by inserting a count on a 
negotiable note, as that would constitute a new cause of action. N&ioaU v. 
^ssey, XVIII. 2^. 


1. In an action on the case, against a sheriff, for a false return, that he had 
taken bail, when he had taken none, the court refused to permit the plaintiff 
to amend his writ, by inserting a count for not delivering up the bail bond, 
mentioiiecl in the officer^s return. Eaton v. Ogitr^ il 46« 

2. In a writ of entry, the court refused leave to amend, by striking out the 
name of one of the demandants, which had been improvidently inserted. 
Treat v. llFMaJum, ii. 120. 

3. In trespass, quare datuum^ charging for an injury to the property of 
the plalntifis, they were allowed to amend their writ, by setting forth, that 
they sued as deacons and overseers of a society of shakers. Anderson v. 
Brocky HI. 243. 

4. Whether a plaintiff may amend his writ, after commencement of ser- 
vice, and before it is completed, duhilatur. Chreelty v. Thurston^ iv. 479. 

5. In assumpsit, against two or more ( before stat 1835, c. 178, ^ 4,) 
the plaintiff could not amend his writ, by striking out the name of one of the 
defendants. Redington v. Farrar^ v. 379. 

6. In an action of trespass, quare claasMm^ brought by the owner of the 
fee, for cutting grass, the writ cannot be amended, by adding a coimt, al- 
leging a Qsurpation of the fee. Campbell v. Proctor j vi. 12. Bartlett v. 
PerHns^ xui. 87. 

7. At any time, before judgment, the plaintiff may have leave to amend his 
writ, by inserting, or enlarging, the ad damnum, McLellan v. Crofion^ vi. 

8. In actions on contract, new plainti6b, or new defendants cannot be 
added, by way of amendment, (before stat. 1835, c. 178, § 4.) Winslow v. 
MerriU, xi. 127. 

9. In an acticm against a postmaster, charging him with unlawfully refusing 
to deliver a letter from his office, an amendment is allowable, by adding a 
count, charging the same act to have been done by one, not duly sworn, 
whom he wrongfully permitted to have the care of the mail, in his office. 
Bishop V. WiSiamson^ xi. 495. 

10. The seal of a writ is matter of substance, and not amendable. Bailey 
V. Smith, XII. 196. Tibbetts v. Shaw, xix. 204. 

11. In an action agamst an officer, for not delivering over prc^rty, by him 
attached on the writ, the court may, af\er verdict, permit an amendment of 
the declaration,'to correct an erroneous description of the term of the court, 
at which the judgment was rendered. Kendall v. White, xiil 245. 

Digitized by 


88 AMENDMBlfT, U. 

12. The court may authorize an amendment of a writ, to correct an erro- 
neouB description of the addition, and place of residence, of the plaintiff. 
Gooch y. Bryant^ xiii. 386. 

13. In an action of trespass, quare cJausum^ carried, hy sham demurrer, from 
the G. G. P. to the S. J. C. ; and, where the action cannot be maintained in 
that form, the latter court will not allow an amendment, by adding a count in 
trespass, de bonis aspartatis, Duncan v. Sylvester ^ xiii. 417. 

14. In an action against the drawer of an order, for the payment of money, 
a judge of the G. G. P. has power to permit an amendment, during the trial, 
aixi aher the argument of the defendant's counsel to the jury, by inserting a 
count for money had and received. Cram v. Sherburne^ xiv. 48. 

15. Where a writ bore date before the cause of action accrued, a judge 
of the G. G. P. has power to allow an amendment of the date, to a sub- 
sequent day. Bragg v. Greenleaf^ xiv. 395. 

16. On the trial of an action on a note, a judge may permit an amendment 
of the declaration, by adding to the number of dollars, in the description 
of the note. Green v. Jackson^ xv. 136. 

17. The court has power to grant an amendment, changing a writ of 
original summons, to a writ of attachment Such amendment is matter of 
substance, and, to be granted on terms, and at the direction of the court. 
Matthews v. Blossom^ xv. 400. Carter v. Thompson^ xv. 464. Ordway v. 
Wilbur, XVI. 263. 

18. A writ, wherein the ad damnum exceeds one hundred dollars, directed 
to, and served by, a constable, may be amended, by reducing the ad 
dfimnum to that amount Converse v. Damariscotta Bank, xv. 431. 

19. The teste of a writ is matter of form, and amendable. Converse r. 
Damariscotta Bank, xv. 431. 

20. In an action of trespass, alleged to have been committed on a day, 
subsequent to the date of the writ, the declaration may be amended, to 
fix the time anterior to the commencement of the action. Hammat v« Russ^ 
XVI. 171. 

21. In an action for boomaffe of logs, on account annexed, an amendment^ 
allowed in the G. G. P., by adding a count, for money had and received, will 
be presumed to be for the same cause of action, unless the exceptions show 
to Uie contrary. Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Baker, xvi. 233. 

22. Where a writ was made, returnable to the G. G. P., " next to be holden 

at B., within and for our said county of P., on the Tuesday of 

next ; and the defendant appeared at the next term of the court, and did not 
object, for that cause, till the third term, it was held, that the court had power 
to permit an amendment, by inserting, in the blanks, the proper return day of 
the writ Ames v. Weston, xvi. 266. 

23. While an action is on trial, on the general issue, the judge may author- 
ize an amendment of the christian name of a defendant, or to strike out an 
item in the account, which the plaintiff fails to prove. Fogg v. Greene, xvi, 

24. In an action, on a policy of insurance, a judge, at the trial, has author- 
ity to permit an amendment, by adding a new count, varying in the date of 
the policy declared on. Warren v. Ocean Insurance Co. xvi. 439. 

25. In a suit upon a guardian's bond, to the judge of probate, where it is 
not alleged in the writ, for whose benefit it is instituted ; and where, but 

Digitized by 


AlfXNDMBlfTy n. 99 

Dominal damages could be recovered, the court will not grant leave to amend, 
if the power to grant mcA amendment exists. Fuller v. Wxng^ xvii. 383. 

26. Where an administrator commenced an action of trespass, qtiare elau» 
sum^ for breaking and entering the close of the intestate, in his lifetime, and 
cutting and carrying away trees, and (or taking, and carrying away, a quantity 
of underwood, lying upon the land, the court has power to permit an amend- 
ment, by adding a count for trespass de bonis asportoHs^ for the trees and un- 
derwood. Hill V. Pfimjf, XVII. 409. 

27. A writ, made returnable, by mistake, on the fourth Tuesday, having 
been duly entered, on the Jirst Tuesday, which was the proper return day, 
and, the defendant having appeared, and the action c<Mitinued, several terms, 
without objection to the reguhurity of the process, may be amended, by 
inserting the proper return day. Baker v. Jtfortony xvii. 416. 

28. Since the stat 1835, c. 178, ^ 4, the plaintiff may have leave to 
amend his writ, by striking out die names of one or more of several defend- 
ants, on paying them their costs, and to proceed against the others. Briggs 
V. Fiske, xvii. 420. Beaman v. fTAiM^, xx. 413. 

29. In an action against a bank, on its bills, where the declaration makes 
no reference to the statute, and no claim to the twenty-four per cent damaces ; 
and where the defendants have been defaulted, and the pkuntiff has received 
die amount of hk bills, and six per cent interest, and the question, whether 
he is entided to an additional eighteen per cent, has been argued ; if a modon 
to amend the declamtion be then made, it will not be granted. Palmer v. 
York Bank, JYUI. 166. 

30. In an action against a town, for an ii^jury, alleged to have been sustained, 
by reason of a defect in a county road, the writ may be amended, by insert- 
ing a count, alleging it to be a common highway. Young v. Garland^ xviii. 

31. In an action for neglect to perform military duty, if the time of the 
neglect be erroneously stated in the writ, it may be amended. Hill v. TVim- 
er, xvui. 413. 

32. After the dissolution of a copartnership, if one of the firm, having 
authority to setde the partnership concerns, give a new note, in the name of 
the late firm, such note, not being valid, is no discharge of the original claim ; 
and, if a suit be brought upon such note, the writ may be amended, by filing 
a count for the origintd claim. Perrin v. Keeney xix. 355. 

33. When a place of residence of one of several defendants has been 
misdescribed, ana the ofiicer, in consequence, has returned non est inventus^ 
as to him, the writ may be amended, by inserting his proper place of resi- 
dence, and service be made on him, by virtue of stat 1835, c. 178, § 5. 
Patten v. StarreU, xx. 145. 

34. An amendment of a writ, after service, without leave of the court, is 
illegal ; but, if it be afterwards assented to, by the defendant, the court will 
consider the objection waived thereby. Maine Bank v. Hervey, xxi. 38. 
CkUds v. Ham, xxiii. 74. 

35. Where one of two demandants, in a writ of entry, pending, when the 
Revised Statutes went into operation, afterwards dies, the court has power to 
permit an amendment, by striking out the name of the deceased, and other 
amendments, to correspond. Treat v, Strickland^ xxiii. 234. 

36. In an action against a sheriff, for the default of Enoch TF., his deputy, 
the plaintiff was permitted to amend, by substituting Ehenexer IT., that being 
the true name, (rreen v. Lotoelly iii. 373. 

Digitized by 


80 AMENDlOUfTy H. UM. IT. 

87. The court may permit the demandant, in a writ of entry or writ of 
rijriit, to amend his declaration, by diminishing the extent of his claim, even 
after a verdict is returned, and before it is affirmed. Plu/mner v. Walker j 
zxiv. 14. 

88. In trespass, quart dottsum^ an amendment, changing the time when it 
was alleged to have been committed, is allowable ; though such amendment 
is unnecessary. Moore -v. Boyd^ zxiv. S43. 

89. A declaration, so defective, that it would exhibit no sufficient cause of 
action, may be amended, without introducing a new cause of action. The 
cause of action, so defectively set forth, may be wdl distinguished from 
another cause of action* PvUen v. HtUckimeom^ xxv. 248. 

40. A declaration against a sherifT, containing only a count for certain mis- 
doings of his deputy, cannot be amended, by adding a count on other and 
distinct acts of ^ sheriff himself, though both were intended to recover 
damages for loss of the same rights. Lmmhard v. Fowier^ xxv. 808. 

41. Where one of several defendants pleads his bankruptcy, the plaintiff 
may be allowed to amend his writ, by striking out the name of the 
bankrupt defsudant Cohmm v« Wmre^ xxv. 880. 

43. A writ, containing one count, upon an alleged agreement, to become 
insiirer of a vessel, may be amended, by leave, in the district court, by add- 
ing a new count, upon a policy, made for the purpose. But the amemiment 
must be allowed and made in the district court, before the action can proceed 
to trial, on such new count, and questions arising thereon transferred to the S. 
J. G. for decision. Loring v. Proctor^ xxvi. 18. 

48. Where a declaration, in debt, upon a recognizance to the state, sets 
forth ihe fhcts, in a manner apprq>riate to a declaration in ecire faeiae^ it may 
be amended, upon terms. Siate v. Folsom^ xxvi. d09. 
See Militia, VI. 5, 12, 15. 


1. Where the title to real estate has been specially pleaded to an action of 
trespass, quare chmmm^ before a magistrate, and the cause has been carried 
fVom the C. C. P., to the S. J. C, by demurrer, that court will not permit 
the defendant to add any other nlea, which could have been tried by tks jus- 
tice. Copeland v. Bean^ ix. 19. 


1. If the clerk omit to affix the seal of the court to an execution, it may be 
added, even after the execution has been extended on lands, and the extent 
recorded. Sawyer v. Baker ^ in. 29. 

2. Where judgment for costs was entered against an administrator, respon* 
dent in an appesu from a decree of the probate court, without mention or his 
official capacity, and an action of debt was brought against him, on that judg- 
ment, the court ordered the record fo be amended, on terms, to stand as a 
judgment against the goods of the deceased in his hands. Crofion v. Bsley^ 
VI. 48. 

3. Where an error in making up a judgment is in the court, it cannot be 
amended on motion ; but it may be, where the mistake is made by the clerk. 
Hall V. WUliams, x. 278. 

Digitized by 


4. A jufltioe of die ^eace has no authority to amend an execution, by affix- 
ing a seal, so as to make valid the previous doings of an officer, in selling 
property tfiereon. Porter v. Haskell, xi, 177. 

5. A mistake, made by the clerk, in an execution for costs, of the time of 
rendition of judgment, may be amended, when produced in evidence, in $eire 
faciaSy against the indorser of the writ CJuue v. (rilwum, xv. 64. 

6. When a defect in a record is occasicHied by an omission of the court, to 
render the proper judgment, or to decide upon the whole subject matter, such 
defect cannot be amended, aAer the session has ckeed, and the cause is no 
long^ $ub judice, Limeriek, peVrt, xviii. 183. 

7. But, if the oonrt has performed its duty oorrecdy, and the reeordiag 
offioer has erred in making up the rec(»d, the court, at any time, may cause 
it to be amended. Limerick, peters, xviii. 183. 

8. Each court is necessarily the judge of what it has decided ; and, when 
it orders an amendment of its reoords, the presumption of other courts must 
be, that it does not order its clerk to record what it has never decided. Lim' 
erick, pefrs, xviii. 183. 

9. Where the certificate of two justicee of the quorum stated, that the 
debtor look the oath, prescribed by the act of 1835, when, in fact, he took 
the oath prescribed by the act of 1836, they had a right to amend, according 
to the truth, though a suit, previously commenced on the bond, might thereby 
be defeated. Colby v. Moody, xix. 111. 

10. The S. J. Court has no authority to make an amendment of the record 
of anodier court, brought before it by writ of errcur. Hobbs v. Naples, xix. 


11. An error in the taxation of costs, in making up judgment by the cleric, 
may be corrected, after execution has issued, if there is any thing to amend 
by. Wright v. Wright, vi. 415. 

12. A clerical error in an execution, in the recital of the amount of the judg- 
ment, is amendable, and does not render a levy invalid, if the true sum is 
apparent on an int^>ection of the whole execution. Smith v. Keen, xxvi. 411. 
See Peactice, V. 9. 


1. The court will not permit an officer to amend his return, on a writ of 
habere facias, on a mortgage, by stating an earlier day of service, where the 
mortgager had tendered the money for redemption, within three years from 
the date of the original return, but not of the date, as proposed to be 
amended. Freeman v. Paul, iii. 260. 

2. An officer was permitted to amend his return of an extent of an execu- 
tion, by inserting notice to the defendant, and his absence from the county, 
after return and record of the execution, and pending an action for the land. 
Buck V. Hardy, vi. 162. 

3. So, by stating the fact, that the person, by whom the appraisers were 
sworn, was a justice of the peace, if the rights of third persons are not 
thereby affected. Howard v. Turner, vi. 106. 

4. But an officer will not be permitted to amend a defective return of an 
extent, if a third person has, in the mean time, acquired a title to the land. 
Means v. Osgood, vii. 147. Banister v. Higginson, xv. 73. 

Digitized loy 



5. An officer will not be permitted to amend the date of a return of an 
attachment of real estate upon a writ, when the rights of third persons haTc 
intervened. Berry v. Spear^ xin. 187. Fairfield v. Painej xxiu. 498. 

6. The court will aUow an officer to amend his return, by inserting by 
whom the appraisers were chosen, even after a lapse of nearly twenty years, 
if the rights of third persons, claiming under the debtor, will not be afiected 
thereby. Crilman v. Stetson^ xvi. 124. 

7. But the court declined to grant leave to amend a defective return of an 
extent, after a lapse of twenty-six years. Rusm v. Gilman^ xvi. 209. 

8. An officer may be permitted to amend the date of his return of an ex- 
tent, to a later day, conformable to the truth, where the tender of the redemp- 
tion money was within a year from the time of the extent, but not from the 
original date ; no third party being adversely interested. Eveleth v. Little^ 
XVI. 374. 

9. A constable, still in office, may amend his return, by stating on the war- 
rant, the time and manner of calling a town meeting. Kellar v. Socage^ 
xviu 414. 

10. Where a debtor has been arrested on execution, and afterwards liber- 
ated, as provided in stat 1828, c. 410, for the purpose of levying the execu- 
tion upon property, the officer should certify the fact of such liberation, before 
proceeding to levy it upon the property ; otherwise, such levy b void ; and 
the officer cannot afterwards supply the omission, by way of amendment, so 
as to make the levy valid. Miller v. Miller ^ xr\r. 1 10. 

11. The court will not permit the amendment of an officer's return, W 
inserting, that the appraisers were disinterested, where the motion was filed, 
more tlmn six years after the levy, and the officer had gone out of office, and 
nothing appeared on the proceedinss to authorize the amendment ; and where 
the officer had become the party mterested, to have the amendment made. 
Pierce v. Strickland^ xxvi. 277. 


1. A libel for a divorce, a vinculo^ for adultery, may be amended, by adding 
a charge of extreme cruelty, and praying for a divorce, a mensa el Ihoro. 
Anderson v. Anderson, iv. 100. 

2. A captain of militia, while in office, and pending a suit by the clerk, to 
recover a military fine, may amend his certificate of the oath, administered 
by him to the clerk, by inserting, that the clerk had subserved the oath. 
Avery v. Butters, ix. 16. 

3. Where a town clerk has made a defective or erroneous record of a vote, 
he may, while in office, amend it, according to the truth. Chamberlain v. 
Dover, xiii. 466. 

4. A magistrate, who had administered the oath to a debtor, under the act 
of 1836, c. 240, concerning assignments, may correct tlie date of his certifi- 
cate, if erroneous. Fiske v. Carr, xx. 301. 

5. A magistrate has no authority, at a trial, to permit a clerk of militia to 
authenticate his company roll ; but the clerk may do it, under the sanction of 
liis official oath. Emerson v. Lakin, xxiii. 384. Cox v. Stevens, xiv. 205. 

6. The justices, administering the oath to a poor debtor, under Rev. Stat. 
c. 148, may amend their certificate, by adding, in accordance with the truth, 
the mode, in which they were selected. Kimball v. Irish, xxvi. 444. 

See Verdict U. 1, 2, 3. 

Digitized by 




1. The amendment of an officer^s return of an extent^ af\er registry, will 
take effect, only from the time of the amendment. Means v. Osgood., vii. 

2. Where a writ was amended, on motion of the plaintiff, by striking out 
the name of one of two defendants, with the assent of the other, the action 
stands, as it would, if originally brought against the remaining defendant 
Fling V. Trafton^ xiii. 295. 

3. Where an officer made an erroneous return, on an execution, of the 
towns, m which he had posted up notices of the sale of an equity of redemp- 
tion, and, in which the land lay, but his deed of the equity, made at the same 
time, and duly delivered, and recorded, gave a correct recital, and particu- 
larly specified the performance of every act required by law, to make the 
sale legal, and the officer had been permitted by the G. C. P. to amend his 
return on the execution, in conformity to the truth, and to the recitals in his 
deed, the tide, thus acquhred, was adjudged . to prevail, against a deed from 
the execution debtor, made after the attachment of die equity on the writ, 
and before the sale thereof. Spear ?. Slurdivant^ xiv. 268. 

4. If an attorney wrongfully alter a writ, after service, this does not excuse 
the officer from the duty of keeping the property attached thereon, safely, 
that it may be applied to satisfy the judgment, or returned to the defendant. 
CkUds V. Ham^ xxiii. 74. 

6. Where, pending an action in the district court, to determine the title of 
persons claiming land, as purchasers under levies of executions from that 
court, the judge had permitted an officer to amend his return of the attach- 
ment <Hi the writ, under which one of the levies was made, the S. J. C. will, 
on appeal, determine the effect of such amendment, on the rights of the 
parties. Fairfield v. Paine ^ xxiii. 498. 

6. Where new counts are inserted in a writ, they will be regarded as intro- 
ducing new causes of action, unless they appear to be for die same cause. 
Fairbanks v. Stanley^ xviii. 296. 

See Attachment, III. (c) 1, 2, 4. 

See Easement, 4, 5. 




For appeals from Probate Courts. See Pbobatb Coitbts. 1, 6, 7, 13. 
1. In all criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a constitutional right to an 

Digitized by 


34 APPEAL, I. 

appeal from a sentence of a justice of the peace, so as to have a trial by jury. 
JohnsonU cate^ i. 290. 

2. No appeal lies from an order of the C. C. P., directing the pUdntiff to 
become nonsuit. His remedy is by exceptions. Fepler v. Feyler^ ii. 310. 

3. In an action of trespass, quare clausum^ originally commenced bef(Mre 
a magistrate, and there accidentally defaulted, and afterwards tried, upon re- 
view, in the C. C. P., upon the plea of soil and freehold, first filed m that 
court, an appeal lies to the S. J. Court Murray v. Vlmer, v. 126. 

4. No appeal lies from a judgment of the C. C. P., on a complaint against 
the kindred of a pauper, far his support. Pierce^ ex parte^ v. 324. 

5. In a complaint for flowage, no appeal lies, unless the respondent, in his 
plea, deny the title of the comphiinant, or claim the right of flowage, without 
paying damages, or for an agreed composition. Cowell v. Cireai Falls 
Man. Co. vi. 282. 

6. An appeal lies from the C. C. P., in a suit in equity, for redemptioii of 
an estate, under mortgage. Clapp v. Sturdivant^ z. 68. 

7. An appeal does not lie, by virtue of the stat 1829, c. 444, § 2, from a 
judgment of the C. C. P., rendered on a statement of facts agreed by the par- 
ties, in an action, originally commenced before a justice of &e peace. FkU' 
lip9 V. Friend^ xi. 411. 

8. The fourth section of the statute of 1839, c. 373, determines and limits 
appeals from the district court, and, in eflect, operates as a repeal of all prior 
legislation, inconsistent with it ; and is not varied by the repealing clause in 
the twelfth section of the act Emmons v. Lord^ xviii. 8&1. 

9. In Stat 1839, c. 373, establishing district courts, there is no provision 
for an appeal from a judgment, on an issue in law, or case stated by the 
parties, unless the damages demanded exceed two hundred dollars. In other 
cases, the only mode of carrying them to the S. J. C. is by exceptions. 
Kimball v. Moody ^ xviii. 359. 

10. An appeal firom the judgment of the district court, in a matter of law, 
without exceptions filed and allowed, will not be sustained. HiU t. HiiU^ 
XIX. 423. 

11. Under the provisions of the Revised Statutes, in an action of trespass, 
quare clausum^ originally commenced before a justice of the peace, ana, on 
plea of soil and mehold, removed, without trial, into the district court, an 
appeal lies to the S. J. Court. Barker v. WkiUemore^ xxii. 556. 

12. In an action of replevin, originally commenced before a justice of the 
peace, and carried, by appeal, to the district court, no appeal lies from a ver- 
dict and judgment in that court. Seiders v. Creamer^ xxu. 558. 

13. The mode of relief, by summary exceptions and appeal, provided by 
Stat 1817, c. 185, ^ 5, does not extend to cases, where the error complained 
of appears of record, but only where it does not so appear. Sayward v. 
Emery^ i. 291. 

14. Where the C. CL P. has not final jurisdiction, the defendant is not bound 
to disclose the grounds of his defence, but has the right to have a verdict 
returned, and to appeal. Froihingham v. Button^ ii. 255. 

15. No appeal lies from a judgment on a verdict in the D. C. in an action 
by (me town acainst another town, originally commenced before a justice of 
the peace. New Gloucester v. BantUle^ xxv. 492. 

See Constitutional Law, K. 1. 

Digitized by 




1. It is not necessary, that the party appeaUng should penonally enter 
iato recognizance, for the prosecution of the appeal. If done by sureties, it 
is equivaknt to doing it *•*• with sureties.'^ Vallanu v. jSotpyer, iy. 62. 

2. The Stat 1823, c 233, saving the right of appeal in criminal cases 
from the C. C. P., does not constructively repeal the prior statute, which re* 
quires a reoognixanoe, with sufficient sureties. Demm$amU ea$e^ iv. 541. 

3. When an appeal is datmed, from a judgment in the district court, and 
time is given, to enter into a recognizance before a justice of the peace, the 
recognizance must be filed in the clerk^s office, within ten days, aAer adjoum- 
ment of the court, or the appeal cannot be sustained. Knighi v. Btan^ xviii. 

4. The Stat 1829, c 444, § 1, infficting twenty-five per cent additional 
costs, against a defendant appellant, in certain cases, does not apply to cases, 
carried to the S. J. Court, by demurrecB, with leave to waive pleadings in that 
court Anonymous^ vu. 161. 

See Recognizancb, II. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 


L Where, in a real action, the land, and the betterments, at the request 
of the parties, were appraised by the jury, and the demandant abandoned the 
land to the tenant, at the price found by the jury, for which sum judgment was 
thereupon rendered for the demandant, and the tenant appealed therefrom, to 
the S. J. Court, but failed to enter his appeal ; upon complaint of the deman- 
dant, the judgment of the court below, for the value of the land, in money, 
was affirmed, with interest, and single costs. Knox v« Lermand^ in. 877. 

2. The report of a master in chancery, appointed by the court below, is 
carried up, with the case, to the S. J. Court, on appeal from a judgment, in a 
suit in equity, for redemption of a mortgage, and may be used in evidence, in 
the same manner, as if the master had been appointed by the court above. 
Clapp T. Stmrdivant^ z. 68. 

3. Where an appeal was dismissed, because the recognizance was not filed, 
widiin the time appointed ; it appearing that the appelkmt had entered into a 
recognizance before the commissioner, within the specified time, but it was 
not transmitted seasonably to the cleric^ office, leave was granted, to enter 
the appeal, upon petition. Knight v. Bean^ xiz. 259. 

8ee Costs, HI. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16. 




1. Where a child is bound, as an apprentice by the overseers of the poor, 
to do any work, in which his master may see fit to employ him ; this is 

Digitized by 



understood to mean any lawful work, and the indenture is valid. Bowes v« 
TibhelU, vii. 467. 

2. Where indentures of apprenticeship are signed and sealed by the father, 
minor son, and master, and conclude with the words, ^^ to the true perfor- 
mance of the foregoing agreement, we have hereunto signed and sealed the 
same,^^ it is a sufficient consent by the minor in the deed. Dodge y. HUU^ 
XIIL 151. 

8. Where, in the indeDture, the master agrees to pay the said father and 
son, ^' fifty dollars per year, for the said^' mmor^s ^ services, until he is twen- 
ty-one years of age, which sum is to be in full for all his labor, and dothing, 
and doctor^s bills^^ ; this is such a security, to the use of the minor, as wUl 
comply with the requisitions of the statute. Dodge v. HilU^ xiii. 151. 

4. In indentures of apprenticeship, the omission of the provision, in regard 
to male children, that they shall be ^^ instructed to read, write and cypher,'^ 
is fatal to their validity. And, to substitute a covenant, by the master, to see 
that the minor is properlv educated and instructed, is not a sufficient compli- 
ance with the statute. Bumham v. Ckapman^ xvii. 885. 


1. Where an apprentice is employed by a third person, without the knowl- 
edge or consent of his master, the latter is entitled to recover the value of his 
earnings; though the employer did not know, that he was an apprentice. 
Bowes V. TibheU^ vii. 457. 

2. Where an apprentice, to learn the trade of a house carpenter, refused to 
CO with his master, to work in a foreign jurisdiction, such refusal is no viola- 
tion of his covenant, that he would faithfully serve his master as an appren- 
tice. Vickere v. Pierce^ xii. 315. 

3. An indenture, in accordance with the provisions of stat 1821, c. 170, 
contains no covenants, by which the parent or guardian is personally bound^ 
The signature of the parent or guardian is affixed, to show his consent to the 
binding. Chapman v. Crane^ xx. 172. 

See Pauper, L (b) 12. 


1. The right to use the water of a stream for domestic purposes, watering 
cattle, and irrigation, is to be so exercised, as not essentially to diminish, or 
unreasonably to detain the water, and the right of using it for this latter pur- 
pose, will not justify the taking of water, for other purposes, to the injury of 
other proprietors. Blanchard v. Baker ^ viii. 263. 

2. In an action of the case, for diverting a water course, if the unlawful 
diversion be proved, the plaintiiSTis entitled to recover, without proof of actual 
damage. Blanchard v. Baker ^ viii. 253. 

3. Priority of appropriation of the water of a stream, confers no exclu- 
nve right to the use of it A riparian proprietor has a right to have the water 
flow in its natural channel, without any injurious obstruction, unless this right 
hcui been impaired by grant, license, or an adverse possession, for more than 
20 years. Heaih v. wUliasM^ ixv. 209. 

4. The regulation of the navigable waters, within the state, is vested in the 

Digitized by 



people ; to be preecribed by laws : aad the naTiflation may be iatemipled, if 
the public good requires it Parker t. Cutler MiU Dam 60.^ zx. 8^ 

5. And, if the more apparent object be, the profit of the mntee, still, it is 
the right and duty of the legislature, to determme, whether £e pubKc interest 
is so comiected with the private, as to audiorize the grant Parker v. Cutler 
MiU Dam Co. xx. 858. 

6. By the colonial ordinance of 1641, now the common law of this state, 
the beds of creeks, less than 100 rods in width, where the tide ebbs and flows, 
became the property of the owners of the land, through which they pass, ex- 
cept, that such proprietors are not allowed to irtop, or Innder the passage of 
boats or other vessels. Law v. Kuawltan^ xxn. 128. 

7. Any such proprietor, therefore, may iffle the land, fuming the bed of 
such creek, aiyi of the space above it, provided, he does not obstruct such 
Davigati<Hi. Ixno v. KnowUon^ xxvi. 128. 

8. That ordinance did not abridge the right to use the waters between hich 
and low water mark, for the purpose of navigation ; and owners of vessels, 

. in passing over said flats, when covered by water, and remaining on them for 
commercial purposes, from the ebb to the flow of the tide, exercised only 
their legal right of navigation. Gerrieh v. Union Wharfs xxvi. 884. 

9. If the rightful use of one^s own estate, whether covered with water, or 
not, diminish the value of an adjoining estate, or prevent its beuig used with 
the comfort, which might otherwise nave been, it is damnum absque infuria^ 
for which the law makes no compensation. Crerrish v. Union Wharfs 
XXVI. 884. 

10. If individuals have acted unlawfully, or injuriously, in extending their 
wharf beyond low water mark, they may be amenable to the sovereign 
power, but they cannot be called upon, by those, who have no interest in the 
land, covered by such wharf, to make compensation to them for its use. 
Gerrish v. Union Wharf, xxyi. 884. 

11. By the ordinance of 1641, the title of the proprietors of flats extended 
only to the ordmary low water nmrk, and not to the place, to which the tide 
ebbed, when^ from natural causes, it ebbed the lowest Crerrish v. Union 
Wharf, XXVI. 884. 

See Damages, I. (b) 2. 



(a) Validity. 

(b) Award rkipsctirg costs. 

(c) CoirSTRUCTlOlf. 

(d) Returning to court, and action therbon. 



1. A submission, cmce made a rule of court, is not countermandable, by 
eidier party. Cundkrhmd v. North Yarmouih, rv. 459. 

Digitized by 


38 AMMrrmArvm, i. 

2. A piopneton^ committee having emered inlo an arbitration, under Utie 
statute, representing themselves duly authorized to do so, and, the proprietors 
having been heard upon the merits, before the referees, making no objection 
to the submission ; upon error brought by them, to reverse a judgment upon- 
the award, the court presumed the committee had due authority, thou^ the 
want of it was one of the errors assigned Fryeburg Canal v« Fryt^ v. 88, 

8. Where two parties executed a bond, submitting to arbitration, all debts, 
dues, and demands, heretofore subsisting between them, and, on the same 
day, one of them gave to the other a promissory note, payable in specific arti* 
cles, at a future dav ; it was held, that the note was not within the terms of 
the submission. 6ixhy v. WkUney^ v. 192. 

4. Where a party defendant, having a good defence at law, agreed to sub- 
mit the action to referees, in the usual form, he was considered^ as referring 
all questions, of law, and of fact, to their judgment ; and it is no ground for 
the rejection of the award, that it is against hiw. Walker v. tSonWii, viii. 

5. Overseers of the pocnr have no authority, virtute (^tciit to submit the 
claim of a pauper to aibitration. Fwrbisk v. HaU^ viu. 315. 

6. In order to give jurisdiction to referees, it is necessary, ^t the demand, 
made by the claimant, be signed by him. The want of this will be ground 
of error. Woodsum v. Sawyer^ ix. 15. 

7. An account, filed in set-off, by a defendant, becomes a part of the 
action, and, without being specified, would be included in a submission of 
such action to arbitration. Eaton v. Cole^ x. 137. 

8. In an arbitration bond, it was stipulated, that the award should be made 
before a certain day ; ** provided nevertheless, that, in case either of the 
parties shall, by afiected delay, or otherwise, prevent the arbitrators from 
making their award, by the time limited, then the arbitrators shall be at liber- 
ty to proceed, and make up their award, taking such time, as they shall think 
reasonable.^' Before the day limited, the arbitrators met the parties, but, at 
the defendant's request, adjourned to a time beyond it, and then gave them a 
hearing, and made up their award. Held, that they had authority to do so, 
within the meaning of the phrase, ^^ by afiected delay, or otherwise." Bixby 
?. WhUnejf^xi. 62. 

9. Held also, that the enlarged time, provided in the bond, extended to all 
the purposes, for which the arbitrators were appointed, and not merely to the 
makmg up and signing the award, on a hearing, previous to the time limited. 
Bixhp V. WhUney^ xi. 62. 

10. A guardian has a general authority to submit to arbitrators, a contro- 
versy, respecting the estate of his ward. Weston v. Stuart^ xi. 326. 

11. A wife may join her husband, in submitting to arbitrators a question, 
touching the title to her lands. Weston v. Stuart^ xi. 326. 

12. A submission, in the form prescribed, in the stat 1821, c. 78, omitting 
the words, requiring the award to be made to the C. C. P., is a submission at 
common law. Tyler v. Dyer, xiii. 41. 

13. It is the settled construction of the statute, authorizing submissions 
befi)re a justice, that a submission, under it, cannot authorize a decision upon 
the title to real estate. McNear v. JBoiZcy, xviii. 251. PhUbrick v. Preble^ 
XVIII. 255. 

14. But, where the remedy for enforcing the award is by a bcmd between 
the parties, such a decision may be sustained. McNear v. Bailey^ xviii. 

Digitized by 


!• u. 99 

15. Whexe a libmiwion aiuthoriies a deonion upon the title to rtal estate^ 
equity will decree a specific performance of the award. McNear v. Bailep^ 
XYiu. 251. 

16. A suhmiflBioa to referees, under c. 188, of the Reyised Statutes, of ma 
action of trespass, then pendmg, ^* and all other demands, and costs already 
accrued on, or growing out of, said suit,^ is a reference of aU demands 
between the parties. Hamum v. JeimingSy xzii. 240. 

17. Where one party has made out a writ against the other, specifically 
setting forth his claim, and has indOTsed his name on the back thereof, and 
such writ is annexed to the submission, it is a sufficient mgning, within the 
purview of the Rev. Stat. c. 138. Hamum v. Jemmngs^ xxii. 240. 

18. If one of the parties to a reference, of a specific demand entered 
into before a magistrate, pursuant to Rev. Stat c. 138, make out and sign his 
demand, and, at the request of the other party, omits to annex it to the rule, 
till the close of the investigation before the referees, and it is then annexed ; 
the opposing party cannot avail himself of this circumstance, to prevent the 
acceptance of the report Harmon v. Jennings^ xxii. 240. 

19. Where a demand, not negotiable, has been negotiated, for value, wbh 
notice, sueh demand is embraced within the terms of a si^mission of *^ all 
Boatten, claims, and demands, either at law or equity,'^ between the anignee 
and the alleged promiser ; and the arbitrator, or referee, has authority, to 
allow to the promiser all payments, made upon the claim, and every thins in 
the way of set-off, as if between the original parties, which existed previoos 
to the assignment, and notice thereof. Brown v. Leavitt^ xxvi. 251. 

20. Generally, a party may revoke a submisnon to an arlMtrator, at com* 
mon law, before an award made, giving notice to the arbitrator. But, if the 
submission be by deed, the revocation can be by deed cmly. And, if such 
revocation be made, the party thereby forfeits the bond, given to abide the 
award. Brown v. Leamti^ xxvi. 251. 

21. Where, by an agreement in writing, certain individuab named, **as 
proprietors of the Lilly Cove township, on the ODtt part, and W. M. R. and J. 
A, as owners of the Winnegance Milk, of the other part, have agreed to 
subnet all claims^ existing betwem said proprietors, and said mill company, to 
the determination of B., R., and H., as referees ; and said parties further 
agree, that said referees shall take into their account, and include in tfieir 
award, all claims oi said projprietofs, and of said company, against each other, 
althou^ other persons, besides these parties, may be or may have been, joint 
proprietors, or members of said company ; and these parties severally agree 
to be accountable therefor ;'' which writing was signed by '^ R. and W., attor- 
neys to said Mill Co.," and by "J. S. S., attV to Lilly Cove Township 
Pro.^^ In an action against the '^ Winnegance IVull Co." which, as a corpo- 
ration, owned the Wirmegance mills, on an award, made by the arbitrators, it 
was held, that the corporation was not a party to the submission, and not liable 
on the award. Sawyer v. Winnegance miil Co. xxyi. 122. 

See EyiDENCE, m. (a) 33. 


1. Where a claim ibr damages, by flowage, was submitted to referees, who 
were authorized to decide, ^^ relative to the damage the said C. has sustained, 
or may hereaAer sustain, by the flowing aforesaid, and also all other claims 
and demands,^ and the referees award^ a certain sum, " in full of all dam- 

Digitized by 


40 ABSirmATtoii, lu 

affe the said C. has sustainedf or may hereafter sustain, by reason of having 
his land flowed by said D^s dam ; said D. not to rawe his dam, and said dam 
not to be raised, hereafter, more than three feet above its present height ;^* 
it was held, that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority, in auth(«izing 
the dam to be raised three feet higher. Clement v. Dwrgin^ i. 300. 

2. After the recommitment of a report to referees, it is not competent for 
two of the referees, in the absence of the third, to revise the essential mer* 
its of the case. CutnberUmd v. North Yarmouth, iv. 459. 

3. A claim for damages, occasioned by making a canal, is within the power 
of referees, appointed under stat. 1821, c. 78. Fryehtrg Caned v. JFV^, 
V. 88. 

4. Whether referees may lawfully examine the parties themselves, as 
witnesses before them, quaere. Patten v. HunneweU, viii. 19. 

5. An action of assumpsit, for use and occupation of certain mills, was 
referred, ** the referees to decide, according to law." It was proved, that the 
plaintiff rented the mills to A., for (me year, ** and such ftirther time, as 
should be agreeable to the parties." At the end of ten months. A, leased 
the premises to the defendants, for (me year, for a (^rtain rent, " after deduct- 
ing all sums, said (defendants) may have paid ft^ repairs on said mills." 
Afterwards, A. transferred his interest in this lease, to £. T., who drew an 
order on the defendants, in favor of the plaintiff, for ^* all sums of nKmey that 
may or have become due, for rent of the mills, 6lc* acconUng to the tenor of 
the lease" ; which order was accepted, and passed over to the plaintiff. The 
referees awarded, that the repairs, made by the defendants, should be deduct- 
ed from the rent, and, on that ground, a previous tender having been made 
of the balance, decided in favor of the defendants for costs. Held, that in so 
doing; they had violated no principle of law. Smith v. Hall, xi. 295. 

6. In this case, the arbitrators were held to be exclusive judges of all 
questions of fact. Smith v. Hall, xi. 295. 

7. By the terms of a submission, the arbitrators were to as(^ertain, whether 
the defendant had paid an adequate consideration for a farm, conveyed to him 
by the plaintiff's ward, and, if not, what was the deficiency ; and how, and 
when, it should be paid ; or to awwi, tiiat he should re-<M>nvey it, and receive 
back what he had paid. The arbitrators awarded, that the defendant should 
pay a certain sum in money, deliver up certain notes, which he held against 
the ward, and release a small part of the land. Held, that they had not 
thereby exceeded their authority. Weston v. Stuart, xr. 326. 

8. On a submission of a dispute, as to a line between (^rtain lots, and 
*^ all costs, that had arisen betwixt the parties, about the premises," held, that 
the referees had no authority to award, that one party should pay the costs of 
a criminal prosecution, on complaint of the other party, against him, for 
an alleged wilftil trespass on the premises in dispute. Tyler v. Dyer, xiii. 41, 

9. Where a written (K>ntract, to find materials, and build a stone dam, stip- 
ulated, '^ that all the work and materials shall be inspected by a third perscm, 
and made to correspond with the decision of such third person, in all respects, 
whose decision shall be final between the parties;" such third person has 
no power to give a legal construction to the contract generally, but merely to 
determine the differences, which relate to the workmanship, and to the fitness 
and quality of the materials. Mason v. Bridge, xiy. 468. 

10. After an arbitrator hcui published his award, he (cannot re-examine the 
case, even to correct an error, without C(»i8ent of parties. Woodbury v« 
Northy, III. 85. 

Digitized by 


ABsmuTtoir, ni. 41 

11. If a. report, made by three referees, be recommitted, and one of them 
neglect or redae to sh again, the other two are competent to make a new 
award, similar to the former, with additional costs. Peterson v. Laring^ 
I. 64. 

See IUfekbss, 1. 


(a) Validity. 

(b) Award kespzctino coiti. 



(a) Validity of an award. 

1. An award, good in part, and bad in part, may be sustained as to that 
part, which is go^ ; unless so connected, that they cannot be separated ; in 
in which case, the whole is void. Clement v. Durginy i. 900. Gordon v. 
Tucker^ vi. 247. PhUhrick v. PrMe, xviii. 2&5. Banks v. Adorns^ xxiii. 
259. Walker v. MerriU, xiii. 173. 

2. An award of referees cannot be set aside, on the sround, that one of 
them bad formed a previous opinion upon the case, if his mind appears to 
have been still opei^ to conviction, and no imputation of unfairness is made 
against him. Crraves v. Fisher j v. 69. 

3. An award of arbitrators, at common law, is not examinable, except on 
the ground of corruption, gross partiality, or evident excess of power. North 
Yarmomth v. Cumberland^ vi. 21. Deane v. Coffin^ xvii. 52. 

4. Where, upon a division of a town, commissioners were appointed, to 
determine, what sum of money one town should pay the other, m order to 
do justice between them ; it was held, that their awani was not examinable, 
for excess of power, nor for mistake in law or fact. North Yarmouth v. 
Cumberland^ vi. 21. 

5. Where A., of the one part, and B., C, D., and E., of the other part, 
named only as individuals, submitted to arbitrators, A^s " claim for damages 
to his land, by the erection and continuance of the dam across Saco river, at 
Union falls.*' The arbitrators awarded that B., " and the other proprietors of 
Union falls mills," should pay to A., a certain sum, and costs. Held, that 
die award was between the parties to the bond, and a bar to any further claim 
for damages, and gave the right, to the obligors, to flow the land in future, 
without payment of further damage3 ; and so, was mutual and final. Gordon 
V. Tkcker, vi. 247. 

6. A demand was submitted to two arbitrators, with authority, in case they 
diould not agree, to choose one or more persons, to act with them. They, not 
having agreed, selected three others, by consent of the parties, to act with 
them. The parties were heard, and an award was made, that nothing was 
due to the plaintiff, and that each party should pay one moiety of the costs of 
reference. Each party paid half the costs, and the award was then opened, 
by their consent, and was not returned to court. Held, that the award was 
binding on the parties, and constituted a valid defence to an action brought on 
the demand submitted. Norton v. Sax>age^ x. 455. 

7. In an action on a bond, to perform an award, evidence to show that the 
Hne in dispute, established by the referees, was not the true line, was held to 
be inadmissible. Tyler v. Pyer, xiii. 41. 


Digitized by 


43 ABBmUTlOV, UI. 

8. In an action, referred, generally, to lefeieea, by rule of oeuit« it is no ob- 
jection to their award, that they have decided contrary to law. Portland 
Mamtf. Co. v. Jocr, xviii. 117. 

9. If the referees disregard the statute of limitations respecting suits 
against executors and administrators, their award is good, unless the question 
is submitted, by the referees^ to the determination of Uie court. Portkmd 
Manuf. Co, v. Foar, xviii. 117. 

10. An award may be good, when it does not embrace all matters submit- 
ted by the parties, as it wUl be presumed, that the matters not named in the 
award were not made known to the arfHtratois. McNear t. Bmlejf^ xviii. 

11. But, where it appears, that the other matters submitted, but not named 
in the award, were made known to them, the general rule is, that the award 
is bad for the whole ; and proof, that such other causes of action were made 
known to the arbitrators, may be by parol. McNear t. Bailefj xvrn. 351. 

12. If the submission do not provide, that the award shall be made on all 
the points submitted ; if the matters omitted are not so connected with those 
decided, that injustice wiH be done, the award n»y be sustained. Other- 
wise, if the matters omitted are so connected with diose decided, that injustice 
will be done. « McNear v. Bailey j xviii. 251. 

13. An award, not involving the title to real estate, may be good, without 
being reduced to writing. Philhrick v. Preble^ xviii. 255. 

14. An award, in writing, may be good, at common law, though it decides 
upon a dififerencc respecting real estate ; but the title to real estate cannot be 
affected by an agreement, or an award not in writing. Philhrick v. Preble^ 
XVIII. 255. 

15. It is no valid olijection to an award, that the clerk, in making out the 
rule, changed the order of the names of the referees, unless the objection be 
made, at the time of the hearing before them ; though the irregularity might 
prevent the acceptance of the report, if the objection be seasonably made. 
BUlington v. Sprague^ xxii. 34. 

16. If the referees, appointed by rule of court, award a certain sum to die 
plaintiff, as damages, with costs of court, to be taxed by the court, but omit to 
state the amount of the costs of reference ; this omission will not furnish a 
valid objection, on the part of the defendant, to the acceptance of the report* 
BUlington v. Sprague^ xxii. 34. 

17. And if the reference has been entered into, not only by the defendant, 
but by his creditor, who had, by leave of court, come into court, and given 
bond, under the provisions of the Revised Statutes, c. 115, ^ 113 — 119, and 
the referees, ai\er awarding damages and costs against the defendant of 
record, also add, " do recover of the said L., (the creditor,) such costs of ref- 
erence and damages, as he may be legally entitled to pay,^* the report will be 
accepted. BUlington v. Sprague^ xxii. 34. 

18. An aword to do an act, other than payment of money, to be good, 
should be so certain, that a specific performance could be decreed. Bankt v. 
AdamSj XXIII. 259. 

19. An award, that B. should pay A. a certain sum, in property, as good 
as he had received ; and that A. should pay B. the amount, wluch B. had 
paid to R., in as good property as B. had paid to R., is void for uncertainty. 
Btmks V. Adorns^ xxiii. 259. 

20. If the arbitrator be a relative of one of the parties, and that fact is 
unknown, at the time, to the other, and, when knoi^-n, objection is made, which 

Digitized by 


III. 43 

is disregarded, hn award is not btndnig ; hut, if the party, with knowledge of 
^ fact, proceeds to a hearing, without objection, he cannot afterwards o^ect, 
fcM* that cause. Brown v. iMtoUt, kxvl 25L 

(t>) Award respecting costs. 

X, Arbitrators, at common law, have no authority to award costs, unless it 
is expressly given. Gordon v« Tucker^ vi. 247. DoUner v. Wing^ ui. 42 L 
Walker Y. Merrill, zuL 173. 

2. Full costs aie taxed upon reports of referees, where the plaintiff is the 
prevailing party, however small the amount recovered may be, unless the 
referees i^herwise direct Brown v. Keiik^ juv. 

(c) Construction of awards. 

1. An award by arbitratorn, written on the back of the arbitmtion bond, 
stating, that they had ^' met, according to appointment, on the within busi- 
ness,^ was held to be an award, ^^ of and concerning the premises,^ and 
therefore good. DoUner v- Wing, in. 421. 

2. Where a submission is of several subjects, distinctly specified, if the 
award does not mention each particular, yet, if it appear^ that all the matters 
submitted must have been adjudicated upon, by the arbitrators, it will be good. 
DoUner v- Wing, in. 421. 

3. Submissions and awards, like other contracts, are to be expounded by 
the intention of the parties and arbitrators. Gordon v. Tucker, vi. 247. 

4. A report of referees, under a rule of the C. C. P., haying no date, was 
presumed, in the absence of evidence to ^ contrary, to have been made at 
the term, when it was accepted, and, that judgment, rendered thereon, should 
not, for diat cause, he reversed on error. Eaton v. Cole, x. 137. 

(d) Return of awards to court, and action thereon, 

L Reports of referees, made under a rule of court, or under a submission 
before a justice, may be recommitted by the court, at their discretion, for the 
revision of the whole case, or for amendments, in matters of form. Cumber^ 
hold V. North Yarmouth, iv. 459. 

2. AfVer referees have once acted, and their report is recommitted, if they, 
or one of them, should refuse to re-examine the subject, the court may enforce 
obedience to their order of recommitment, by mandamus or attachment 
Cumberland v. North Yarmouth, iv. 459. 

3. A motion to reject an award, for admission of improper testimony, by 
the referees, is not sustained, by showing that such testimony was admitted, 
unless It also appear, that It was objected to, by the other party. Patten v. 
HunneweU, yul. 19. 

4. Where, on a submission to arbitration, pursuant to the statute, the debtor 
gave a bond, to the creditor, conditioned, to pay the sum awarded, in six 
months ; but the report of the referees, though notified to the parties, was not 
fBade to the court next after the award ; this omission is no bar to an action 
on the bond. &naU v. Connor, viii. 165. 

d. The question of recommitment of a report of referees, appointed under 
a rule of court, is addressed to the discretion of the court, whose decision is 
smi subject of a hill of exceptions. Wmlber ▼. Sanborn, viii. 288. 

Digitized by 



6. Such al«o k the question of acceptance or rejection of the rep<Hl, for 
alleged irregularities in the hearing before the referees, where Uiere is no 
proof of fmid, partiality or corruption. Walker ▼. Sambam^ tiii. 388. 

7. The S. J. Court, has no authority to recommit a report of referees, 
returned and accepted in the court below, and carried up by exceptions. 
Walker v. Satibam^ tiii. 288. 

8. "Where an action, brought by an administrator, and an account filed in 
set-off, were submitted to a referee, who reported, that the defendant recover 
a certain sum as damages, and costs, against the plaintiffs and judgment was 
rendered in the C. C. P. on such report, against ike goods and estate of ike 
imteetaU^ it was held to be no error. Eaton v. Cole^ x. 187. 

9. If arbitrators award in favor of one party, in a particular unauthorized 
by the submission, it affords no ground of objection on his part Gatvin v. 
Thompson^ xiii. 8(57. 

10. Parol evidence cannot be admitted, to vary a written submission or 
award. McNear v. Bailey^ xviii. 251. 

11. Interest will not be allowed, on the sum awarded by referees, between 
the time of making their report, and judgment thereon, though the cause may 
be continued on exceptions filed. Southard v. Smyth^ xix. 458. 

12. After an action has been submitted to referees, and the referees have 
met thereon, a trustee process cannot be interposed, to prevent a judgment 
upon the award of the referees ; neither would the person, against whom the 
award is made, in such case, be held chargeable, as die trustee of the other 
party. Codman v. Strout 4* TV. and Strout v. Clements^ xxii. 292. 

18. The submission of a controversy, by rule, before a justice, ** to he de^ 
cided according to the principles of Zaw," does not require the referees to 
report the facts, and their conclusions upon them, to the court ; but they 
are equally the judges of the law and the facts. Latham v. WtUon^ xxiii. 

14. The mere errors in judgment of referees, ordinarily afford no ground 
for a recommitment of their doings. Harris v. Sealj xxiii. 485. 

15. If the errors complained of arose from oversight or accident, they 
should be so alleged, and distinctly pointed out ; otherwise, the district court 
may well refuse to receive testimony concerning them. Harris v. Sealj 
XXIII. 485. 

16. Bv the Revised Statutes, c. 188, the decision of a district court, upon a 
report of referees, is subject to exceptions. Harris v. Scaly xxiii. 485. 

17. Where, in a reference, by rule of court, it was stipulated, that the 
report, to be made, as soon as may be, in any county, it was held, that the 
prevailing party, for whose benefit the stipulation was inserted, was not bound 
to offer it in the county, where the court was next holden, but might offer it in 
any county, where the court should be holden, prior to that, in which the 
action is pending. Dole v. Hayden^ i. 152. 

18. A judgment of the district court, accepting, rejecting, or recommitting 
a report of referees, is subject to revision, on exceptions, in the S. J. C, with 
discretionary power, to accept, reject, or recommit the report, according to 
the equity of Uie case. Lotkrop v. Arnold^ xxv. 186. 

1. Where a demand, against a deceased testator, was submitted to referees 

Digitized by 


who awarded against die estate, after which, the eaaeiitor found among the 
testator's papers, a receipt from the credited, to him, in full of all demands, 
dated subsequently to the origin of the debt ; in assumpsit, on the award, the 
executor was allowed to show this receipt, in bar of the action* Parwom v. 
HaU^ III. 60. 

2. If arbitrators erroneously reAise to consider a particular demand, on the 
ground, that it was not within the suhnussicm ; the b(»id and award are no 
bar to a subsequent action upon the demand, thus rejected. Bixhf v. WkU' 
nqf^ V. 192. 

S. Awards of referees, appointed under the statute, or under a role of 
court, may be rejected or recommitted, by the court, to which the award is 
returned, at discretion, for mistakes in law, or fact, if such mistakes clearly 
appear. North Yarmouth v. Cumberland^ vi. 21. 

4. Where the question of damages for flowing lands has been submitted 
to arlutration, and the award performed ; whether a subsequent grantee has 
any remedy for damages, after his title accrues ; quaere. Gordon v. Tucker^ 
VL 247. 

5. The remedy, for the improper rejection of a report of referees, appoint* 
ed by rule of the C. C. P., is, by exceptions regularly filed. If the oefend- 
ant, after rejection of the report, plead to the action, and the cause is carried 
up by appeal, from a judgment upcm the pleadings, or verdict, no question is 
open respecting the report Vance t. Carle^ vii. 164. 

6. Where certain heirs of an intestate, entitled to different proportions of 
the personal property, joined with the administrator, in a submission of their 
claims to an arbitrator, who awarded a gross sum against the administrator, 
and then proceeded to apportion it among the heira ; held, that diey all might 
yAsk in an action on the award. Stetson v. Healey^ tii. 462. 

7. Where a motion was made in the C. C. P. for the rejection of an award, 
made under a rule of that court, because the referee received the testimony 
of the adverse party, in support of his claim ; and the judge expressed an 
opinioii, that this, if proved, constituted no sufficient cause for rejecting the 
report ; whereup<xi me objector omitted to offer proof of the fact, but took 
exceptions to the opinion oi the Judge, in accepting the report, it was held, 
thai the exceptions could not be sustmned, because of the omission. Patten 
V. HunneweUy tiil 19. 

8. In an arbitraticm, ^ to determine, as referees^, whether the tenant was, 
^ by law, entitled^ to claim betterments, and if so, what amount, a written 
statement of facts was agreed, by the parties, upon which the referees decid- 
ed, that the tenant was ^ legally entitled^^ to betterments, to a certain amount 
Held, that the question of law was definitively submitted to the referees ; and 
tfiat any mistake of law, on their part, was not open to further examination. 
SmUhr. Thamdike, yiu. 119. 

9. M. leased a mill, and certain other premises, to H., with special agree- 
ments respecting repain ; and the rent, when ascertained, was agreed to be 
paid to S., who held a mortgage thereon. Afterwards T., an assignee of M., 
with H., submitted to arbitration, purauant to the statute, the various subjects 
of rent, expenses, and repairs ; on which, judgment was rendered, in fav<»r of 
T. against H., for the balance, found due by the award. In a subsequent 
suit by S., against H., for the use and occupation of the premises, H. ten* 
dered the amount of Uiis judgment ; but it was held, that S. was not bound 
by the judgment on this award, it bemg res inter alios acta. Smith v. HaU^ 
VIII. 848. 

Digitized by 


46 ABmmLMsnom^ it. 

10. A 8iU>miflBk>n to one referee, duly signed, sealed, and ackaowM^ed, 
before a justice of the peace, in the form prescribed, is not binding under the 
Stat 1821, c. 78. Bowes v. French, xi. 182. 

11. If an award, under such submission, be good at conunon law, the remedy 
is, by action of debt, or covenant, and not assumpsit, though, after the award 
was made, the parties agreed in writing, that it might be opened, and that 
they would abide by it Bowes v. French, xi. 182. 

12. A bond, to perform the award of referees, was left by the parties in 
the hands of a third person, with directions, not to give it up, without the 
consent of both. An action was maintained on the bond, without such assent 
to its delivery. Tyler v. Dper, xiii. 41. 

IS. If the C. C. P. reject a report of referees, and discharge the rale, 
being a rule of that court, in consequence of improper management, by a 
party, with the referees ; these are discretionary acts, and furnish no cause for 
exceptions. Cutler t. Grover, xv. 150. CUq>p t. Hanson, xt. 845. 

14. In a reference by rule of court, if a deed be placed in the hands of 
referees, to be delivered to the grantee, on his giving, to the grantor, his note 
for the amount, found due by the referees ; and if the note be given and 
received, and the deed delivered, and the award contested, but accepted by 
the court ; in an action for the land thus conveyed, so long as the judgment 
remains in force, the proceedings before the referees are not open to examin- 
ation, even if a mistake or fraud of the referees can be shown. Tyler v. 
Carlelon, xvi. 380. 

15. Where the parties, to a suit in court, agreed in writing, that the defend* 
ant should be defaulted, and certain perscHis appointed arbitrators, whose 
decision should be conclusive, as to the amount due ; with power to allow to 
the defendant any claim, which he might have filed in set-off, and, that the 
court should enter judgment thereon ; it was held, that the plaintiff should 
not recover a sum, in addition to the amount awarded to him, on proof that 
he had paid certain sums for the defendant, which had not been taken into 
consideration by the arbitrat(»s. Deane v. Cqfin, xvii. 52. 

16. Where referees, under a rule of the C. C. P., make a report, without 
submitting any question of law to the consideration of the court, and the 
court, upon enquiry into the facts, accepts, or declines to accept, the report, 
the judgment of that court is final. Preble v. Reed, xvii. 169. 

17. But where the referees report a statement of &cts, and expresriy refer 
the law to the decision of the court, the acceptance or rejection of the report 
is subject to revision, in the S. J. C., upon exceptions ; and, in such case, the 
S. J. C. has power to recommit the report to the referees, Preble v. Reed, 

XYIL 169. 

18. Where a submission authorizes a decision upon the title to real estate, 
equity will decree a specific performance of the award. McNear v. Bailey, 
xviii. 251. 

19. The plaintiff and defendant, by agreement, under seal, referred to 
arbitrators the amount due from the defendant, *^ to be paid in stock, on Sept. 
1, 1841, and the plaintiff to leave the premises, on Sept 15, 1841.*' The 
referees made their report, under seal, August 10, 1841. On the 10th of 
Sept the plaintiff demanded the neat stock, which was refused. Held, that 
thereupon the amount became payable in money ; and could be recovered in 
an action of debt Barrett v. Twombly, xxiii. 833. 

20. Where one contracts to cut and haul timber, from land of the other, 
at a certain price, per thousand, ^^ to be estimated by P., and cut to his satis- 

Digitized by 



faction,^ tke parties are bound by his estimate, it not appearing, ^t be had 
acted ccNrmptly, or made any gross mistake. Oake$ v. idocre^ xxiv. 214. 

21. An arbitrator is admissible as a witness, to testify the time, when, and 
the circumstances, in which, he made his award. WoodJmry y. Norihy^ in. 

22. Where a demand has been submitted by bonds, it is not competent for 
the party, against whom the award is made, in an action upon the bond, to 
show, by testimony, what the evidence before the arbitrator was, or how he 
regarded it. Brown v. LeaoUt^ xxvi. 251. 

23. Where a submission is made to an arbitrator, without any menti(m of 
an ex parte hearing, and the parties meet, and a partial hearing takes place, 
when both parties are present, and the hearing is adjourned to another day, 
when one of them does not attend, and a flirther hearing is had, and an award 
is made ; it is not a valid objection to the award, that the final hearing was 
ex pmte. Brovm v. Leatiit^ zxvi. 5^1. 

See Condition, I. 14. 
Dbbt, 9. 

Etidbnce, ni. (d) 4, 6, 7. 
Exceptions, 50, 56. 
Pleading, III. (e) 2. 


1. A debtor is not liable to arrest, on mesne proci^ss, in any case, in which, 
ftfler judgment, he is not liable to be taken on execution. Green v. Morse^ 
Y. 291. 

2. Where the officer, and the execution debtor, being together, the debtor 
said, he had surrendered ; upon which, the officer said, he had appointed I. 
G. as his keeper ; ^* this was held to be sufficient evidence of his arrest. 
Straut V. Goochj viii. 12& 

3. Under the provisions of stat. 1835, c. 195, the oath of a creditor, that 
the debtor ^ is about to change his residence, and abscond beyond the limits 
of the state,'^ is not sufficient to authorize his arrest. Mason v. Huichinga^ 
IX. 77. 

4. If the debtor be arrested, under such oath, the arrest is unauthorized, 
and the officer is not responsiUe to the creditor, for not complying with the 
statute provisions, as in ease of a legal arrest. Moion v. Hutchings^ xx. 77. 

5. Under the provisions of stat. 1835, c. 195, and stat. 1836, c. 245, an 
oath, that the debtor was *'*• about to depart, and establish his residence beyond 
the limits of the State, with property or means more than sufficient for his 
immediate support," is equivalent to an oath, that he was " to take with him" 
such property or means. French v. McAllister j xx. 465. 

6. If there be an omission, in the oa&, of the words, ^^ ^tablish his resi- 
dence beyond the limits of this state," and of the words " that the demand 
in the writ, is, or the principal part thereof, due him," and there be no equiva- 
lent words, the arrest will be illegal, and will not be a legal service of the 
writ. Maine Bank v. Hervey^ xxi. 38. 

7. Privilege from arrest, while going to, or returning from the polls, on 
days of election, does not extend to an elector, preparing to go, if he have 
not actually proceeded on the way. Hobhs v. GetchelU v"i- 167. 

Digitized by 



8. An officer, who acts according to his precept, in making an arrest, b 
not a trespasser, though the par^ arrested be privileged from arrest Chate 
V. JPuA, XYI. 132. Cork v. Delesdemier^ xiii. 363. 

9. A member elect of the Legisbture, not having taken his seat, may 
waive any privilege from arrest, existing by virtue of such election ; and a 
bond, given to obtain his release from prison, on an arrest, made aAer such 
waiver, is not void for duress. Cha$e v. Fish^ xyi. 132. 

See Officse, I. (b) 3, 4. 

Poor Debtors, IL (b) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 

See JuDOMEKT, n. 1 — 5. 


In an indictment, under stat 1821, c. 4, ^ 2, for burning a meeting house, 
it was held not necessary to allege, in whom was the property of the house, — 
nor its value, — nor, that the ofience was committed, vi et armis^ — nor, that it 
then continued to be used, as a place of public worship. State v. Temple^ 
XII. 214. 

See Justices of the Peace, III. 1. 


1. In the assessment of a tax, if the assessors exceed the sum voted to be 
raised, and five per cent thereon, even by a few cents only, the whole is 
void ; and the assessors are liable in trespass, to a party, whose goods have 
been distrained for the tax. Huae v. Merriam^ ii. 375. 

2. Where the same individuals are elected, as selectmen and assessors, 
and their election, as assessors, is not by ballot, and they are duly sworn into 
both offices ; their doings, as assessors, may be sustained, as the doings of 
selectmen, in a vacancy in the office of assessors. Mussey v. White^ iii. 

3. It is not necessary to the validity of a warmnt, for the collection of 
taxes, that it be delivered to the collector, during the year, for which he and 
the assessors were elected ; it is sufficient, if made, and signed, while they 
are in office. Mussey v. White^ iii. 290. 

4. Under stat 1821, c. 115, § 14, it b not necessary that the notice, to be 
posted up by the assessors, of the time and place of their session, to receive 
evidence of the qualifications of voters, should be inserted in ^e warrant for 
calling the town meeting. Tompean v. Mussey^ ni. 305. 

Digitized by 



5. In an action of trespaM, against parish aflsesaorsy it was holden, Aat a 
vote, " to allow the collector, #10, for collecting the tazes,*^ did not authorize 
the assessors to include that sum in their assessment, with other sums voted lo 
be raised at the same meeting. Mosiker v. Rohie^ xi. 135. 

6. The statute of 1826, c- 337, in relation to the liability of assessors, 
aflbrds no protection to assessors, for including, in their assessment, a sum not 
raised by vote, exceeding the authorized overky of fWe per cent. Mother 
V. Rohie, ii- 135. 

7. The act of 1886, c. 387, § 1, imposing certain Kabifilies upon towns 
and odier corporations, and exempting the assessors, does not apply to school 
districtB. Greene v. BaHetf, xii. 254. 

8. For an assessment of money, voted by a town, ct a meeting not legally 
called, or without an article justifyiog it, or for a purpose, not authorized 1^ 
law, &e asseasofs would be pexBonauly liable. Per Weston C. J. Bueeep 
V. LeavUt^ xii. 378. 

9. The money paid by non-restdents, for taxes, assessed Ifbr the highways, 
is a substitote for the Labor and materials, and the assesscHTs of plantationa 
have a right to appropriate such mone^, for the repair of the highways, 
whether paid the first year, or included m the money tax of the fdlowmg 
year. Jaamard v. Argyle, xvi. 276. Same ▼. Same^ xx. 296. 

10. It is no defence to a suit, on a coUector^s bond, that the assessment pre- 
paratory to issuing the tax list and warrant, wiis not signed by the assewors. 
KeUar v. Savage^ xx. 199. 

11. In the absence of proof, the court will presume, that the tax list and 
the warrant were duly signed by the assessors. KeUar v. Smtage^ xx. 199. 

12. Where a fund, applicable to highways, in a plantation, is assessed, and 
in a train for eollec6on, the assessors may draw orders on the highway ac« 
count, to the extent of the fund, before it is actually received by (he treas- 
urer ; and such orders will be available to the holder, against the plantation ; 
and his rights wiH not be afiected by any irregularity or unfaithfulness in the 
officers charged with the collection. Barnard v. Argyle^ xx. 296. 

13. Assessors are the proper officers to adjust claims against their planta- 
tions, for making and repairing highways therein ; and, when there is a fosAy 
out of which payment may be made, and they have a f\ill knowledge of the 
subject, and there is no fraud, such adjustment binds the plantation. Bar' 
Hard T. Argyk^ xx. 296. 

14. In tin ac6on, upon a collector's bond, where it appeared, that the tax 
lists for the year, wh^ committed to the collector, was not under the hands 
of the assessors ; but ^t, subsequently, an additional tax list, referring to the 
first fist, as contammg the assessment for ^t year, and «igned by a majority 
of the assessors, was committed to the collector, it was held to be a suffi- 
cient compliance with the statute, and, ^t the whole lists must be considered 
as duly authenticated, and committed to the collector, at ^ time of the eooi- 
mitment of the supplementaiy list Bangor v. Laneey^ ttl 472L 

15. If a tax fist be signed hy a majority of the assessors, in such maimer, 
as clearly to s^w their intention to give it dieir official sanction, it is immate- 
rial, on wbat part of the list their signatures appear. Joknton v. Croodridge^ 
XV. 29. Bangor v. Lancey^ xxi. ^72. 

16. But the signing the warrant, on a lea of tlie same book, which con- 
tains the list of assessment, is not suifieieot Coiby v. RueeeU^ uu 227. 
K w grs/tT. JVeoent, tv. 72. 


Digitized by 


60 A88l03niSlfT, u 



(t) RlOHTt OF THB AttlOPBB. 

(b) Pathbpts to, o% a msLEAtB rmoa tbk AttiaRom 
(e) SsT-orr, ahd other mattbes 



(t) UhDBB STAT. 1836, CHAP. S40. 


1. An asmgnment of a nKurtgage must be by deed. But, a bond may be 
aingned by delivery, for a full and valuable consideration. Vo$e v. Hmufy^ 
II. 822. 

2. An order, for tbe payment of the whole^ of a paiticular fimd, m an 
equitable aasignment of that fund, to the payee ; and, afler notice to the 
drawee, it biikb the funds in his hands, though the order be not negotiable, 
nor expressed to be for value received. Bobbins v. Baern^ nu 3& Le» 
gro V. Staple$^ zvi. 252. JokM4m v. Thayer^ xvu. 40L 

8. If an officer place in the hands of the creditor's atlcnrney, a receipt, 
taken by him, for safe keeping of goods, which he had attached, to be prose* 
cuted for die benefit of the creditcNr; this is an equitable assignment of the 
ccmtract, and his liability to the creditcMr forms a sufficient connderation. 
Clark V. CUmgh^ iii. 357. 

A, Where the secretary of a corporation received an coder for UKMiey, 
payable to himself, in his private capacity, but designed to be applied to the 
payment of a debt, due from the drawer to the corporation ; and he afterwards 
d^vered it to the treasurer, for that purpose ; this was held to be a sufficient 
assignment ; and a subsequent discharge, from the original payee, did not avail 
the acceptor. Swett v. Green^ nr. 884. 

5. The payee of notes, left in the hands of an attorney for oc^ecticm, 
drew an oitler on the attorney, directing him to pay to a third person the 
amount, which he should collect, on the demands left with him ; and the at- 
torney accepted, to pay such sums, as he should receive, after obtaining what 
might be due to himself; this was held to be no assignment of the notes ; 
and a subsequent payment to the promisee was good. Tkager v. Ha»mer^ 
Ti. 212. 

6. In order to protect the assignee of a chose in action, from ^ effect of 
a subsequent payment to the assignor, it is sufficient, if he give the debtor 
notice of the assignment, without exhibiting the security, or offering him 
any other evidence of the fact. Davmport v. Woodbridge^ viii. 17. 
Hacketi v. Mcariin^ viu. 77. Robbint v. Bacon, iii. 346. 

7. After an assignment of a chose in action, no subsequent act or declanL^ 
tion of the assignor can modify or control it. But the relations of the debtor 
are not changed, till he has notice. Hackett v. Martin^ yiii. 77. 

8. But, an assignment of a chose in action, and delivery to a third person, 
to be delivered to the assignee, may be revoked, by the assignor, before the 
assignee knows, or assents to, the assignment. Mitchell v. AUen^ x. 50. 

Digitized by 


I. II. SI 

9. Where a person, in contemplation of immediate death, deposited cadi 
and notes, indoned by him to a surety, with the intention, that they dKmkl 
be received by the surety, as soon as his death should be kiK>wn, with written 
directions to the surety, that he should relieve himself from his liabilities, and, 
if any thing remained, give the balance to the deceased's children ; and the 
surety, afler the death, received and claimed the property ; he was held 
entitled to retain so much, as was necessary for his indemnity. Woodbury 
V. Bowman^ zrv. 154. 

10. A chose in action may be assigned, for a valuaUe consideration, by 
delivery of the evidence of the debt, without a written transfer. LiUl^Uld 
V. SmUh^ XVII. 827. 

11. An assi^mient, which is valid between the parties, and bona fide^ can- 
not be defeated by a trustee process. LdUl^ield v. Smithy zvn. VH. 

12. A license, to cut timber on the hinds of the grantor, is not asngnable. 
Emerson v. Fiske^ vi. 200. Pease v. Gibson^ vi. 61. 

18. A parol assignineat'of a chose in action is sufficient, to transfer an 
equitable mterest tl^rein, which will receive protection, in courts of law ; and 
a symbolical delivery will be sufficient. Porter v. Buttard^ xxvi. 448. 

14. Under the Massachusetts insolvent act of 1841, c. 124, the mere fects, 
^t the assignment was made, about two months before the insolvency of the 
assignor was published, and, that the assignee received, as collateral security^ 
nearly double the amount due to him, in debts, apparently due to the assignor, 
were held, not to be sufficient, to authorize the conclusion, diat the assimoee 
bad reasonable cause to believe such debtor was insolvent Porter v. jBvl' 
lardj XXVI. 448. 

See Bills, d^. II. 10. 

Execution, IV. 2. 
Judgment, IV. 3. 


(a) Rights op the issighek. 

(b) PaYMEHTI to, or a BBLEAIE from the AStlOHOR. 

(c) Bet-off, and other hatters. 

(d) Pleaoi5C8 ahd evidence. 

(a) Rights of the assignee, 

1. Where a chose in action was assigned, and the debtor, beinff called upon 
by the assignee, said, he would pay it to him, if he was legally entitled to 
receive it ; this was held sufficient to enable the assignee to maintain an action, 
in his own name, under a count, for money had and received, on showing a 
legal assignment. Lang v. Fiske^ xi. 385. 

2. Such promise, being made by one of two partners, for a partnership 
debt, will bind the firm. Lang v. Fiskey zi. 385. 

3* Where a mortgage is assigned, as security for payment of a debt, and 
the assignee, aAerwards, with the knowledge of the assignor, enters to fore- 
doee, both against him and tlie mortgager, the assignee has the right to waive 
and release to the mortgager the entry to foreclose against him, without the 
ent^of the assignor. Cults v. York Man. Co. xiv. 826. 

4. If a surety pa3r8 the debt, due from the principal, and takes an asngiw 

Digitized by 


5S AsnomRRTy n. 

ment, from the creditor, of the securities, he succeeds to all the rights of the 
era liter. Norton r. SouU^ ii. 841. 

5. If the purchaser of an equity of redemption take an assi^ment of 
the mortgage, this will not extinguish the mortgage, if it be for the interest 
of tiie assignee to uphold it. Thompmm ▼. Chandler^ vii. 977. 

6. Where the owner of goods assigns, and delivers them to another, as 
security for the payment of a debt, and the assignee, with the assent of the 
owner, assigns them to the plaintiff, for the benefit of his creditors, but not 
in conformity to the statute, and roid ; an action of trespass therefor can be 
maintained, by the plaintiff, against one, who takes them, as a mere wrong- 
doer. Barker ▼. ChoMe^ xxiv. 230. 

7. Where mutual accounts exist, the balance only can be protected, for 
the benefit of an assignee of one of the parties. Leathers v. Carr^ xxiv. 351. 

8. The assignment of a contract, to convey real estate, upon the perform- 
ance of certain conditions, vests an equitable interest therein, in the assi^ee, 
which will be protected and made available by courts of law. Dyer v. Mum* 
hmm^ XXV. 9. 

See Actions, ^., 1. 19, 20. 
Assumpsit, 1. 10. 
Bills, &c., II. 3, 4, 6, 12. 
Costs, I. (b) 4. 
Trustbb PiocBss, V. 4, 5, 7. 

(b) Payments to^ or release from^ tJie assignor. 

1. Where one, of two joint debtors, deposited, with the other, certain notes 
of hand, not negotiable, with the assent of the promiser, to be collected, and 
the proceeds applied to the payment of the depositor's half of the joint 
debt, and thus to protect the other from his liability for that half; the party, 
so depositing, could not, af\erwards, receive payments of such notes from the 
promiser, nor release the latter from his liability to pay them to the holder. 
Clark V. Rogers^ ii. 143. 

2. A note and mortgage having been assigned, when over due, in an 
action by the assignee, on the mortgage, it was held, that the mortgager 
might set up, in defence, any payments made to the original mortgagee, 
prior to notice of the assignment. Ldthgaw v. Evans^ viii. 330. 

3. The mortgagee, in such case, is a competent witness for the assignee, 
being properly released. And, where the release was of all demands, it did 
not affect the validity of the assignment, though the witness testified, that the 
assignment, absolute on its face, was, in fact intended, as collateral security 
for a debt, due to the assignee ; the legal operation of the release being, to 
▼est the mortgage in the assignee, and discharge his claim against the as- 
signor, for indemnity. Lithgow v. Etans^ viii. 330. 

4. If a promissory note, not negotiable, be assigned, before it was due, and 
notice thereof be given to the maker, who afterwards pays the money to the 
fMTomisee ; in an action, subsequently brought, in the name of the prom- 
isee, for tiie benefit of the assignee, it is a good defence, that the assignment 
was without a valuable consideration, and void ; though the defendant had 
previously been summoned, as trustee of the promisee, and, disclosing 'the 
fact of the assignment, had been discharged. Dunning v. Sayward^ i. 366^ 

& An asMgnment by one partner to the other, of his interest in the part- 
nership demands, is good, in equity, and gives to the assignee the right to use 

Digitized by 


AB9unaaan. n. 

the name of die aengnor in cdlecting them ; and a diacharge by the aaatgnor, 
gnren afterwards, without ccHwideration, will not defeat an action brought in 
the name of both. LmU ▼. Stevent^ xxnr. 594. 

(c) Sei-ojf^ and other maUer$. 

1. If the aaaignee of a chose in action would render his claim available 
against a debtor, who has been summoned as trustee, by a creditor of the as- 
signor, the assignee must give notice of the assignment to the trustee, before 
dnclosure, that he may state the fiict therein. MeAllUter t. BroolUy xxii. 

2. Where mutual demands exist between the parties, one of them cannot, 
by an assignment of his cause of action, defeat the right of the other, to set 
off the judgments rendered thereon, even though one judgment be in the S. 
J. Court, and the other in the district court. Hooper ▼. Brvndage^ xxii. 

(d) Pleadings and evidence. 

1. In an action, in the name of an assignor of a choee in action, for the 
benefit of the assignee, such assignor cannot be admitted as a witness for the 
debtor. Hackeil v. Martin^ viii. 77. 

2. A. assigned to B., all his interest in certain property, held by them 
jointly, and deposited in the hands of a third person. In an action, brought 
by B., against the depositary, on a promise, made by him, subsequent to the 
assignment, to account to hun alone, A. was a competent witness. Lang 
T. FiskCj zi. 385. 

3. The possession of a note, payable to a third person, and not indorsed 
by him, the declaration of the holder, that it was his property, and the leav- 
ing it with an attorney for collection, as such, in the absence of all opposing 
proof, are evidence of an equitable assignment of the note to him. Evi- 
dence of such declarations is admissive as part of the res gesia. Harriman 
V. BiU^ xiT. 127. 

4. Proof of the assignment of a chose in action, and of notice to the debt- 
or, without exhibiting to him the security, or other evidence thereof, when no 
request is made therefor, Ls sufficient to protect the assignee, against subse- 
quent pejrments to the assignor. Bean v. Simpson^ xvi. 49. 

5. Where the plaintiff had agreed with his debtor, to take a note, payable 
to himself, or to T., and, afterwards, sent an order to the debtor, to " let A., 
(the defendant) have the note, as we agreed, for the balance due rae,^^ this 
does not, as between them, furnish presumptive evidence of an assignment of 
the demand to the defendant. McNear v. Atwood^ xvii. 434. 

6. If the maker of a note, payable in specific articles, expressly promise to 
pay to an assignee of the note, the amount due thereon, the assignee may re- 
cover the same, in an action, in his own name. Smith v. Berry ^ xvni. 122. 
Hatch V. Spearin^ xi. 354. 

7. In a suit, by an assignee of a chose in action, in his own name, on an 
express promise of the debtor, to pay it to him, it is not necessary, for the 
assi^ee to exhibit proof, that the assignment was made for a valuable consid- 
eratioD. Norris t. HaU^ xybu 332. 

8. And, if such proof had been necessary, the deed of assignment, ac- 

Digitized by 


S4 AMMmnHTy ui. 

knowMging the receipt of a oomideratioii) wai sufficient for that porpooe. 
Narru v. Hall, xnii. 882. 


(•) UrDBE STAT. 1836, OBAP. 240. 

(b) Gbhkrallt. 

(a) Under $tat. 1836, cJu^, 240. 

1. An omission, in the instrument of assignment, under the statute, to fix a 
time, when the creditors may become parties, does not render the instrument 
inoperative. FUke y. Carr, xz. 801. 

2. A creditor, who has become party to &e assignment, cannot object to 
its validity, because it contains a full discharge of the whole claim of the 
creditor upon the debtor. Fiske v. Carr, xz. 301. 

8. The property assigned is protected from attachment, from and after the 
execution and delivery of the instrument, if publication be made, as required 
by the statute, within fourteen days thereaf^r. Fitke v. Carr, xx. 801. 

4. When personal property is mortgaged, as security against the liability of 
the mortgagee, on a note signed by him, as surety for the mortgager, and the 
mortgagee assigns the mortgaged property, for the payment of his debts ; the 
assignee may maintain trespass against an officer, for attaching this property, 
<m a writ, issued on the note specified in the mortgage, against the mortgager 
and mortgagee. Fiske v. Cost, xx. 801. 

5. Two debtors, P. ds B. C, b partnership, assigned, for the benefit of all 
their creditors, ^^ all and singular the stock in trade, household goods, furniture, 
implements, excepting goods, exempt by law from attachment, debts, sums of 
money, books of account, notes, and all other things due and owing the said 
P. ds B. C, and all their real and personal estate, and interest therein, as 
will appear by the schedule, under oath, hereto annexed, which is intended 
to give only a general description of the property assigned, subject to such 
fiii^er enlargement, or diminution in Value, as a particular and minute 
survey of the property will justify." A schedule was annexed, containing a 
general description of the same property. The signature was, " P. & B. C.,** 
and but one seal. There was a certificate, by a magistrate, that P. dc B. C. 
personally appeared, and made oath, that the assignment embraced all their 
property, save such, as the law exempted from attachment. Held, that the 
assignment conveyed all the property of the assignors, required by the stat- 
ute. Pike V. Bacon, xxi. 280. 

6. When an assignment of a debtor's whole property has been made, in 
good faith, its validity will not be impaired, if the assignor withholds a part of 
Sie property, actually conveyed. Pike v. Bacon, xxi. 280. 

7. An assignment, honestly and fairly made, with an intention to comply 
with the statute, is not invalid, as against a creditor, because it was made to 
prevent an attachment by him. Pike v. Bacon, xxi. 280. 

8. But, if made to delay, or defeat, creditors, or to secure to the assignor 
a benefit, by reservation of any part, for his own use, and not for the purpose 
of making an equal distribution among all the creditors, it is fraudulent and 
void. Pike v. Bacon, xxi. 280. 

9. If the assignor make use of deception, to induce a creditor to delay 
making an attachment, until an assignment can be made, this is not conclu- 
sive evidence of fraud, but merely evidence, for the consideration of a jury. 
Pike V. JBaccm, xxi. 280. 

Digitized by 


10. Since the stat 1886, c. 240, all aMtgnmeirtB, which proride only for 
such credhoTB, as shall consent lo release the assignor troia all claims nad 
demands, excepting so far as they can realize any portion thereof, under the 
provisions of the assignment, are void. Pearson v. Crosby^ xxiu. 261. 
Wheeler v. Evans^ xxvi. 183. 

11. Under ^t statute, an exception, in the assignment, of property, not 
exempted by law from attachment, renders the assignment voia. Foster v. 
Lihby, XXIV. 448. 

See AiCENDMBinr, YI. 4, 

(b) Generally. 

1. After a general assignment of property, for the benefit of all the creditors 
of an insolvent debtor, a further instrument was executed, eight days later, 
giving priority to a large amount of debts, due to the U. S. Held, ^t the 
assignment still took effect from the first date, unafiected by intervening 
events. Fox v. Adorns^ v. 245. 

2. An assignment, in trust, for the benefit of creditors, is not vitiated bv a 
condition, that the creditors shall accept the provision made for them, in full of 
dieir respective demands. Fox v. Adorns^ v. 245. Todd v. BwJcnam^ xi. 

8. The time limited in an assignment, for creditors to become parties, may 
be so short, or so long, as to justify a presumption of fraud. And, where this 
assignors were largely ensaged in foreign traide and commerce, and were in- 
debted, to the amount of $400,000, the court were strongly inclined to the 
3>inion, that seventy days was so short a time, as to invalidate the assignment 
'ox V. Adorns^ y. 245. 

4. Such an assignment, by an insolvent debtor, in another state, will not 
be permitted to defeat an attachment of a creditor, residing here. Fox v. 
Adams J v. 245. 

5. A creditor, who attaches property, in the hands of an assignee, by 
trustee process, is entitled to payment, in preference to those creditors, who 
executed the assignment subsequentiy to such attachment, notwithstanding the 
covenant of the assignees, to pay, pro rata^ all the creditors, who might be- 
come parties to the assignment and release their demands. Jewett v. Bur- 
nmrdy vt 881. CopeUmd v. Weld, yiii. 411. Todd v. Buchum^xi. 41. 

6. It is no good objection to the validity of an assignment, that it contains, 
on the list of preferred creditors, one, who was only a surety, and had not yet 
been damnified ; — 

Nor J that it contained a reservation of his necessary and proper household 
fiimiture, family apparel, and means of pa3ring small debts, under fifty dol- 
lars, and ordinary family expenses : — 

Nor^ that it provided for the payment of the expenses and commissions of 
the assignees, before any distribution to creditors : — 

Nor, that it provided for the dischai^ of the debtor^s sureties, as well as 
of the debtor himself. Canal Bank v. Cox, vi. 895. 

7. The creditor of an insolvent debtor, becoming party to an assignment, 
which contained a clause of general release of cdl demands, may lawfully 
qualify his assent to the assignment, by limiting his signature, to a certain 
class of his demands, excepting others from its operation. Veering v. Cox, 
VI. 404. 

Digitized by 


56 AMBtomaanf nu 

8. It is not against the policy of the law, that an insolvent debtor should 
assign all his property, to secure a part of his creditors : — 

iVor, that the assignment should be by way of mortgage, with a stipula- 
tion, that tiie mortgager should retain possesion, even beyond the time, when 
the money becomes due, and make changes in it, by manufiicturing and 
selling ; provided, there be no evidence of a fraudulent intention, to delay 
creditors. But, the length of time may be so great, as to afford evidence, 
per te, of fraudulent intent Brudey v. Springs vii. 241. 

9. The assent of preferred creditors, to an assignment, may well be pre- 
sumed, their claims being fully provided for ; that of other creditors must bo 
expressed. Copekmd v. WM^ viii. 41 L 

10. Where the assignee sold the goods, so assigned, taking the purchaser's 
notes on time, which were not vet payable, he was still held chargeable, for 
their value, as trustee of the debtor, in a foreign attachment Copekmd v. 
WeU, viu. 41 !• 

11. Where property, of various descriptions, is assigned, for the payment 
of debts, and die assignee is summoned, as trustee of the assignor, by a re- 
cusant creditor, the court will not undertake to marshal the assets, by desig- 
nating the fund, out of which any creditor shall be paid. Copekmd v. Weld^ 
viti. 411. 

12. Whether, to a general assignment, for the equal benefit, pro ratOj of 
all the creditors of the assignor, their assent may be presumed : — 

Or^ whether a verbal assent to such assignment be sufficient : — 

Or^ whether the written assent of a creditor, by a signature to one part of 

an indenture, in triplicate, be sufficient, quaere. Copekmd v. WekL^ viii. 


13. A prevision, m an assignment, that the surplus, should there be any, 
in the trust property, shall be paid over to the assignor, will not vitiate the 
assignment Todd v. Bucknam^ xi. 41. 

14. The assent of creditors cannot be presumed, to an assignment, which 
stipulates for a credit of six months, for the balance, that may remain unpaid, 
after the assignee shall have executed his trusts. Todd v. bucknam^ xi. 41. 

15. Though the nominal value of the property, assigned, may be greater 
than the debts of the assenting creditors, yet, in an action between the as- 
signee and an attaching creditor, the former mirv show, that the real value is 
less, than the amount of such debts. Todd v. nuclcnamj xu 41. 

16. To render an assignment effectual, it is not necessary, in all cases, that 
the creditors should become parties, by signing. The property being passed 
over by delivery, the instrument may be so drawn, as to require only the sig- 
nature of the trustee ; and, in such case, the mere verbal assent of the pre* 
ferred creditors is sufficient, to protect the property from attachment, by the 
other creditors. WUey v. Colline^ xi. 193. 

17. G. H. & Co. gave to W. H., a member of the firm, their promissory 
note. W. H. failed in business, and assigned this note, and also an account, 
against G. H ds Co., with other property, to trustees. G. H. & Co. also 
failed, and made an assignment of theur property, to trustees. The assignees 
of W. H. became parties to the assignment of G. H. & Ca, for the amount 
of the note and account aforesaid. The assignees of G. H. & Ca were 
summoned, in a trustee process, by recusant creditors of the company, and 
it was held, that the trustees could not retain the property of G. H. & Co., to 
pay the assigned claim of W. H., to the exclusion, or mjury, of creditors of 
the company. Portkmd Bank v. Hjfde^ xi. 196. 

Digitized by 


m. IT 

18. By the terms of an tamgameatt th^ debts, due to the anignees, or 
either of them, were to be first pakL Held, that a debt, due to a firm, of 
which one of tlie assignees was a partner, was cutided to this preference. 
Held, also, that a debt, due to W. C. ds Co. was secured, under a provision 
to pay W. C, he having no separate claim. Wilson v. Hanson^ xii. 58. 

19. Where a vessel, absent at sea, was assigned, and did not return, till 
aAer service of a trustee process, by a creditor, upon the assignee, he waa 
held chai^eable for the balance of the proceeds of sale of the venel, aAer 
paying such creditors, as had become p«urties to the assignment, previoiMly to 
the service. Arnold v. Elwell^ xiii. 261. 

5^. If the payee of a negotiable note become parQr to an assignment, 
made by the maker, for the benefit of his creditors, this does not destroy the 
negotiable character of the note, although the efiect may be, to make the 
payee^s signature to the assignment inefilectual, unless adopted by the in- 
dorsee. Hiltan v. Soutkwick, xvil 303. 

21. Where an assignment has been executed by the debtor, and by the as- 
signees, but no creditor has become a part^, an attachment of the properhr, 
as the property of the debtor, will hold agaicst the assignees. Carr v. Dofe% 
XYii. 358. 

22. Where an acceptor of a draft made an aasianment, containing a re- 
lease of the assignor, from his liabilities, and the holder of the draft, with 
the verbal assent of the drawer, wrote upon the assignment, in the list of 
creditors, a description of the draft, ^^for whom it might concern,^ it was held, 
diat this would not discharge the drawer. FUke v. Stevens^ xxi. 457. 

23. If one obtain goods, by false representations, and then assign them, for 
the benefit of his creditors, to an assignee, who is not a creditor, and, who 
was fully notified of the fraud, before any creditor had assented to the assign- 
ment, the property will be considered as still, virtually, in the hands of the 
assignor ; and no rights can be subsequently acquired, by the assent of a 
creditor to the assignment, adverse to him, from whom the goods were fraud- 
ulently obtained. higer$oll v. Barker^ xxi. 474. 

24. Where a bill in equity alleges, that the plaintifiT, as a creditor, is enti- 
tled to a sum of money, in the hands of the defendant, as assignee of a 
debtor, and the answer states the amount, received by him, as assignee, and 
nmply denies the right of the plaintiff, to any portion of the fund, on the 
ground, that he had not made himself party to the assignment ; it is not open 
to the defendant, in argument, to object, that the assignment is void, by reason 
of non-compliance wi£ the provisions of the statute. Houghton v. DavUy 
zxm. 28. 

25. A creditor, who seasonably signs and seals the instrument of assign- 
ment, but does not affix the amount of his claim, if not requested to do so, is 
entitled to its benefits, though, by the terms of the assignment, the assignee 
is to pay over to the creditors, in proportion to the ^* sums written opposite 
their respective names." Houghton v. Davis^ xxiii. 28. 

26. Where an assignment provides, that any surplus, above pajring the cred- 
itors, should be paid over to the debtor, he should be made party to a bill in 
equity, brought by a creditor, against the assignee, to recover his share of the 
fund. Houghton v. Davis ^ xxni. 28. 

27. One of the creditors cannot mamtain a bill in equity, in such case 
without making the other creditors, parties, unless it be a creditor's bill 
where all the creditors are entitled to come in, and have their rights ascer- 


Digitized by 


H ABSIQiniKlfT, m. — AMUMFSITy I. 

tained. But the court may permit an amendment of the IhIL, upon terms, at 
any time before a final decree. Houghton v. DavU^ xxni. 28. 

38. Parol testimony will not be admitted, to show, by the conversation of 
the parties, at the time of executing the assignment, what debts were intend- 
ed to be secMued. WiUon v. Hanson^ xii. 58. 

29. Where an assignment was by indenture, m three parts, containing the 
words, ^ It being expressly agreed, that they, the parties of the second part, 
sImU be answerable, only for their indiridual receipts, payments, and wilful 
de&ults, and not otherwise,^* the trustees, in an action at law, are liable, only, 
if at all, sepanUdy, by several actions. Howe r* Handleif^ xxv. 116. 

80. Where assignees have assumed a debt, due to a preferred cre^Rtor, by 
giving their own note therefor, rel3ring upon the funds in their hands, lor 
repayment, they are to be considered, as standing in the place of such pre* 
ferred creditor, as to that amount. IlolHn$ v. Taber^ xxv. 144. 

81. Where an assignment was made, since April 1, 1886, and vmd, as 
not conforming to the provisions of stat 1886, c. 240, and the assignor drew 
an order on tl^ assignee, requesting him to pay the amount, in hiis hands, to 
those creditors, who had become parties to the assignnemt, which order was 
accepted by the assignee ; this was held, to be an assignment of those funds, 
to those creditors ; suod the assignee was not liable, as trustee of the assignor, 
in a process, commenced after such acceptance. Wheelet v. Evens, xxn. 







(b) Where thbbb i» ar exprrbs contract. 


1. The law will not imply a promise, against the protestation of the person* 
attempted to be charged with it. Jewett v. S^menet^ i. 125. 

2. Where the court of sessions appointed a committee, to lay out a county 
road, at the expense of the petitioners ; the committee cannot maintain an ac^ 
tion against the county for their services. Jewett v. Somerset^ i. 125. 

3. Where a grantcur, in a deed» made certain reservations, out of the profits^ 
during his life, and the grantee fulfilled the reservations, for a time, and then 
died insdvent, and the guardian of his minor children entered, and neglected 
to perfcurm the terms of the reservation ; it was held, that assumpsit does not 
lie, against the minors, for the particular reservations in the deed, nor, ^ use 
and occupation. Drinkwater v. Gray, lu 168. 

4. Assumpsit, as well as debt, will lie by a company, authorized to recover 

Digitized by 


toIK on logB paMmg diroagh a shoce way or canaL Bear Canp Rivmr Co, 
Y. Woodnut^ II. 404. 

§. AflBumpsh wni act lie, against an executor, to recover back the consid- 
eration money of a deed, giren hy him, under license to sell the real estate of 
the testator, for the payment of debts, and where the laod is taken from a 
purchaser, by an M&t and better title. Jofce y. i2|f«i, nr. 101. Sprimg y. 
PsrlcsMn, XII. ISn. 

6. One tenant in common may maintain assumpsit, against his co-tenant, 
who has sold the common property, and received all die money. Chrdiner 
Man, Co. v. Heaid^ v. 36L 

7. Certain perscms employed an agent, to purchase a lot of land, and 
take a deed to himself, concealing his principals. One, who, at the request of 
the prineipals, became mirety for the agent, on the note given for the consid- 
eration money, was held entitled to maintain assumpsit agsinst them, for mon- 
ey, which he paid on said note ; and, that their promise was upon sufficient 
considexation. SmUk v. Sayward^ y. 504. 

8. Assumpsit may be maintained, for assessments, on shares in an inoorpo- 
mted company, against a subscriber, on an agreement, ^ to take and JUl the 
number of shares, set against his name'^ ; but, if he had merely agreed to 
take die shares, without promising to pay assessmests, the only remedy would 
have hee^ a sale of the shares. Bangor Bridge Co. v. McMakom^ x. 478. 

9. Assumpsit, (or use and occupation, will not lie, where the relation of 
landlord and tenant does not exist Porter v. Hooper^ xi. 170. 

10. Assumpsit may be maintained by an assignee of a note not negotiable, 
or an accountable receipt, on a special promise, made to himself; the instru- 
ment bein^ a good ccmsideration for such promise ; but, if the instrument be 
again assigned, the action must be brouglit by the second assignee, on the 
mstrument, in the name of the original payee, and not of the firat assignee. 
Hatch V. Spearin^ xi. 854. 

11. Where a town voted to raiae #9000, for repcuring highways, and, ^ that 
the proprietors' portion of said tax be laid out, under the inspeotioa and direc- 
tion of the selectmen^' ; a certificate, given by the selectmen, that A. had 
worked $41,56, of B. J's highway tax, (one of the *^ proprietors'^) would not 
authorize A. to maintain assumpsit against the town therefor. Jackson v. 
Belmoni^ xii. 494. 

, 12. Assumpsit may be maintained, on a promise to pay a debt, implied in 
^ law, though, through the fraud of tbe promisor, the credit was originally giv- 
en to a thurd person. Downing y« Freeman^ xiii. 90. 

13. Assumpsit, as implied by law, is never the proper remedy against an 
officer, for neglect oft misbehavior, in his (^ke. Bauey v. BuUerfield^ xiv. 

14. A promise is^ver implied by law, if made by an instrument, under 
seal, and still in fall locce ; and, if the obli^r in a bond, conditioned to con- 
vey land, sell the land to another, assumpsit cannot be sustained by the ob- 
ligee, for the money received. Charles v. Dana^ xiv. 883. 

15. A sealed instrument may form the foundation of an action of assump- 
sit, and may be used in evidence, on the trial of such action, when there is 
no stipulation, in such instrument, for payment, or performance, to the party 
to be benefited, or to s<Mne other person, for his use. HinUeif v. Fowler^ xv. 

16. Thus, where two persons set down on paper, under their hands and 
seals, a statement, of what their rights, and the rights of certain others shall 

Digitized by 


M AttUMPttT, U 

be^ on the happening of a certain event, without any ccTenant or contract to 
pay to any one ; the rights of such others may be enfoioedy in assumpsit for 
money had and received, in their own names. HimkU^ y. Fowler ^ xr. 385w 

17. Where a joint owner of personal property sells it, and takes notes 

therefor, in his own name, payable on time, which he transfers for his own 

t benefit, his co-teoanti may immediately commence and sustain an aetioii 

against him, though the notes may not have become payaUe. fftdUay t. 

fbwfer, XT. 285. 

18 Assumpsit lies for the principal, in his own name, for goods sold by his 
factor, though the foctor have taken a note therefor, payable to himself only, 
and not to lus order, which he has delivered over to the principaL Edmond 
V. Caldwell, XT. 840. 

19. Where a statute gives a corporation a lien on logs, for booma^ at* 
sumpsit may be maintained, for the boomage, againsti a person, makmg an 
express promise to p^ for the same, before delivery from the booni. Pemoh- 
$cot Boom Corp. v. Baker^ xvi. 288. 

QO, Assumpsit may be maintained, in the name of the marshal of the dis- 
trict, on a receipt, given to one of his deputies, prominng to deliver property, 
which had been attached by the deputy, on demand, to any o&cer authorized 
to receive the same. S mith v. Wadleigh, xnii. 95. 

21. Assumpsit is the proper form of action, by the master of a county 
house of correction, for the time being, for support of a person legally con- 
fined therein, against the town of his legal setdement Si»ch action is for the 
individual benefit of the master, and the suit should be in his name ; and, 
though the account must first be allowed by the county commissioners, yet 
that allowance is not in the nature of a judgment ; and the action should be 
for the expenses incurred, and the service rendered. WetfWiouLk v. Gorham^ 
XXII. 385. 

22. Assumpsit will not lie, for goods stolen, before or aAer the convictioii 
of the felon. Foeier v. Tticker, in. 458. 

28. No action lies for recovery of money, subscribed for the establishment 
of an academy ; nothing having been expended by the trustees, nor any other 
act done, as a consideration, or upon the faith of the promise. Foxeroft 
Acmdemp v. Favor, it. 882. 

24. Assumpsit may be maintained, against a town, by an individual, who 
had contracted to support the poor of the town, for an agreed compensation, 
for a year, and the town afterwards refused to permit him to perform his con- 
tract Daoenport v. HaUoweU, x. 817. 

85. Assumpsit will not lie, upon a decree of a court of chancery of another 
Jtate. McKim v. Odom, xii. 94. 

26. A promise of indemnity, to an agent, is implied, from his employ- 
inent as such. And, if an officer, by direction of the creditor, attach goods, 
in the hands of the debtor, he may maintain assumpsit, to recover an indem- 
nity, for any damage, sufiered in consequence thereof. Gower v. Emery, 
XVIII. 79. 

27. Assumpsit cannot be maintained against a party, committing a tort, as 
on an implied contract, unless he has actually derived some benefit therefrom. 

Webster v. Drinkwater, v. 819. 

28. If the owner of a vessel detains goods, to obtain payment for freight, 
and they are wron^ully taken from his possession, by writ of replevin, an 
action of assumpsit, commenced, pending the action of replevin, for the 
fireigfat, may be sustained. Barnard v. Wheeler, xxrv. 412. 

Digitized by 


u II. 61 

39. Wheve iiie pkiBtiff gave hk nole to a thsrd pefsonv in disofaarge of a 
debt due from tbe defendant, widi bk content, aasumpnt will lie, to recover 
the amount from the defendant, tfiough ^ note has not been paid. MeLel' 
km V. Crofton^ vi. S07. 

30. Where the court of sesBiODB, as a condition of granting a petition for a 
road, required tbe petitioners to pay tbe expense of its location, if tbe peti- 
tioners cause tbe road to be laid out, diey assent to tbe condition, ano as- 
sumpsit will lie against them, for such expense. Patridge t. BMard^ u. 

31. If, pending such petition, it be altered in a part, not afiectmg the 
general olgect sought by the petitioners their liabtti^ is not discbai^ged. 
Patridge y. Btdlard, ii. 50. 

32. Where one covenants or agrees, under seal, with another, to pay him 
a sum, or to do an act, for his benefit, assumpsit cannot be mamtained, 
tbe only remedy being on the covenant or agreement, in the name of the 
covenantee. Hinkley v. Fowler^ xv. 986. 
See Agency, I. 11. 
Attobnbt, n. 3. 
ComnACT, I. 7. 
cokpofation, iv. 4. 
Devise and Legacy, IV. 1, 6. 
Husband and Wife, II. 8. 


1. Where divers persons gave their several notes, to the treasurer of a par- 
ish fund, as a subscription, under an agreement, that, if any subscriber 
removed, and remained out of town three years, his note should be given up ; 
a subscriber, who had thus removed, and remained, was held entitled, not 
only to receive his note, but to recover back any money, paid toMrards tbe 
principal of the note. Holden v. Otufidd^ lu 394. 

2. Where there was a contract for the ccmveyance of land, on the punctual 
payment of certain instalments, part of which were paid, and the others neg- 
lected, and the owner of the land afterwards sold it to another ; it was held, 
that the money could not be recovered back ; tbe defendant not having waiv-. 
ed, nor rescinded the contract. Romndi v. Baxter ^ iv. 454, Wefmmtk v. 
McLeUan^Tiv. 214. Freet y. Fro$i, xi. 235. 

3. Where one purchased a farm, and paid half, in cash, and gave his note, 
with sureties, for the residue, and the deed was made, by consent, to the sure- 
ties, for their indemnity thereon ; and, ailerwards, they refused to give up the 
deed, on discharge of their suretyship, without payment of fifty dollars to each ; 
which the purchaser paid, without objection ; held, that he could not recover 
back the money, so paid. Gilpatrick v. Sayward^ v. 465. 

4. A judgment debtor, having paid part of a debt, to redeem land taken 
from him by extent, but failing to pay the residue, whereby the land b lost, 
cannot recover back the money paid. Morton v. Chandi^^ vi. 142. 

5. Where one conveyed four clapboard machines, and two Single machines, 
and likewise the patent right, for the towns of L. and J., having no such 
patent right to the clapbosurd machine ; he was held liable, in assumpsit, to 
refund so much of the consideration money, as h^ had received therefor. 
Jndkins v. JSorZ, vii. 9. 

6. Assumpsit will not lie, against the overseers of the poor of a town, to 

Digitized by 


• 3 

recorer back money coBeeted horn te pkiatifi^ by aa a t to rney, eaaployail by 
them, on a judgment of filiation, in a bastardy ptooeta, on complaint of a 
poor female, an inhabitant of such town, wkere the judgment was aAenrardt 
quashed, on certiorari ; nor is the action maintainable against the town, nor 
the attorney; but only against the complainant. DameU y. iVisaers, yu. 

7. Where a recogniamoe had bean taken in too large a torn, by the fiemnd 
of the conusee, and extended on the real estato of tine conusor, and after- 
wards, a writ of entry had been brou^it, and socoessfiilly prosecuted, for tiOB 
conusee, against the conusor, for the same land, it was held, that the conusor 
might still, on proof of the fraud, maintain an acticm against the conusor, 
for the excess. MarUm y. Chandler^ yui. 9. 

8. If a grantee accept a deed, without ooYonants, he cannot recover back 
^the consideration money, unless there has been fraud, circumYention or pur* 

posed concealment £ai«rsoii y. WashiMgUmj ix. 68. 

9. Where a tax was illegally assessed, by county commisBioneis, on a 
township of land, owned by lluissachusetts, for binlding a road, laid out through 
the towmihip, and the person, who had built the road, under contract with £e 
commissioneis, bid off the township at auction, when sold by the sheriff, fOT 
non-payment of the tax, and received from him a deed thereof, it was held, 
that, on ftulure of title, the ccmtractor had no remedy against the county. 
Etnersan y. Washington^ ix. 88. 

10. Where a debt<H', in settlement of a suit by compromise, bef<»ne entry, 
pa3r8 to the plaintiff's attorney two and a half per cent for commissions, he 
cannot, afterwards, recover it back, though, at the time of the settlement, he 
objected to it, as unreasonable. Rawson v. Porter^ ix. 119. 

1 1. Where, under an agreement for the sale of land, the purchaser made 
partial payments, but the seller had no title, but held a contract for a title, to 
be afterwards completed ; it was held, that this fact, being well known to the 
purchaser, at the time of making the contract, furnished no ground, to recover 
back the m<Hiey paid, the contract not being rescinded. Smith v. Haynes^ ix. 

12. Money paid to a town, for the office of constable, it having been put 
up at auction, prior to the choice, cannot be recovered back. Groton v* 
Wdldohoroughy xi. 806. 

13. Money paid by the shipper of goods on freight, for their liberation, 
when detained by the master, on a groundless claim, may be recovered back ; 
though the goods were released, on the written promise of an agent of the 
owner, to pay the amount ; and the agent afterwards paid, according to prom- 
ise, without resistance. Chamberlain v. Reed^ xiii. 357. 

14. Money paid, as the consideration of a quitolaim deed of land, where 
there was no fraud, cannot be recovered back, though the grantee has been 
evicted by an elder and better title. Soper v. SUvens^^ xiv. 133. 

15. Where money has been paid, without authority, it cannot be recovered 
back, if the party, so recovering, would thereby be subjected to an action for 
repaym^it of the same sum. Kdly v. Merrul^ xnr. 228. 

16. Where parties contract, under a mutual mistake of facts supposed to 
exist, there being no fraud, and no beneficial interest obtained, the one, who 
pays, can recover back the money paid : and, a mistake of a foreign kiw is 
to be regarded as a mistake of fact Norton v. Marden^ xv. 45. 

17. But money cannot be recovered back, when paid under a mistake of 
the law: — 

Digitized by 


Nor, when paid Toimitsnly, or, widi kneirledge, or meaiM in hand, of a 
knowledge, of ik& fiMHa : — 

Nor^ when paid, under a mistake of the ftiets, if the payer has derived a 
substantial bei»Bfit from the payment Norton v. Marden^ zv. 46. Norrio 
y. Bktken^ zix. 348. 

18. Where an officer, haTing a writ in his hands, for serrice, receires die 
money from the debtor, and agrees to pay it orer to ^ credit^', but neglects 
to do so, for a jrear, and die debtor is again sued, and pays orer the nMMoey to 
l3be creditor, tiie debtor may maintain an acticm against the officer, to recover 
hBck the money paid, with interest, without a previous demand. Waite v» 
Dele9dermer^ zv. 144. 

19. Payments, made under a parol contract, for the pmchase of land, can- 
not be reclaimed, unless the seller be in feult ; but, if he, without cause, re« 
pudiate the contract, an action accrues to the purchaser, to recover back the 
money paid, as far as would cmnport with justice and equity. Riekard* v. 
AUm, xviL 296. 

30. If the purchaser have entered into possession of the land, the ben* 
efit deiived from such possession, should be deducted from the amount paid 
by him. Biekards v. AUtn^ zvu. 296. 

21. Assumpsit, to recover back the money paid, is not the proper form of 
acti(»i, against the oUigor in a bond, for having omveyed the land to another, 
and thus disenabled himself fVom performing the condition of the bond ; but, 
to maintain this action, there shouki be WKqmi>ocdL froof^ of rescission of the 
contract, <m the part of the defendant, before the action was birought The 
making a mortgage of the premises, by the defendant, does not furnish such 
proof. Goddard v. Mitchdl, xvii. 366. 

22. Money lost, by betting upon the speed ot hones, in a trottmg match, 
may be recovered back, under the provisions of the stat 1821, c. 18. Ellis 
V. Beale^ xviii. 337. 

23. Money paid, in part fulfilment of a valid agreement, cannot be recov- 
ered hack, unless the agreement has been rescinded, by mutual consent, or 
the plaintiior has a right to rescind it, from the failure of the defendant, to per- 
form. Where the agreement was, to convey land, the fact, that the land was 
subject to incumbrance, affords no ground for rescission. Appleton v. Chase^ 
XIX. 74. 

24. A deputy sheriff attached property on a writ, which was prosecuted 
to judgment ; and no demand was made upon the deputy, within thirty days, 
for the property attached. Afterwards, a suit was commenced by the execu- 
tion cr^itor, against the deputy, who made payment, in discharge of his sup- 
posed liability, for the goods attached. Held, that such payment was made 
under mistake of the law, and not of fact, and could not be recovered back« 
Norris v. Blethen, xix. 348. 

25. Money, paid expressly to¥rardB a note, which was aAerwards sued, and 
judgment recovered thereon, after appearance, by attorney, and several oon- 
tinuances of the action, but no claim for an aJlowance of the sum, so paid, 
cannot aAerwards be recovered back. Weeks v. TAoma#, xxi. 465. 

26. Where the plaintiff was induced, by the false representations of the 
defendant, that he was the agent for the owners of a township of land, to pay 
him for treq>asses, which he had committed thereon, he may maintain an 
action to recover back the amount so paifi ; if the plaintiff have sustained loss 
by such false representations, but not otherwise. Wells v. Waterhouse^ xxii. 

Digitized by 


64 AtmnmiT, n. m. 

87. WlMre the prinmpal of a note is paid in foal estate and baak slock, 
accepted ^ as an equivalent for the principal,^ and the interest is paid in 
cash ; an over payment of the nole, fay a mistake in the amount of interest 
due, may be recovered back. Goddard v. Puimam^ xxii. 363. 

38. If a party would rescind a contract, on the ground of fraud, and re- 
cover back the mone^, paid by him thereon, he must do it within a reasonable 
time thereafter. JVimgaU v. Kimg^ xxiu. 3&. 

89. Where lands had been sold, tby a county treasurer, for an illegal tax, 
assessed by ihe court of sessions, for the repair of a road laid out by tli^ state, 
and the lands were redeemed by the owner, it was held, that he might recover 
back the money, so paid, in an action for money had and received, i^ainst 
the county. Joy v. Oxford^ uu 131. 

30. M^ere money was paid, to liberate a raft of lumber, detained te ex* 
aet illegal toll, it may be recovered back. Cha$e v. Dwmtd^ vii. 134. 

81. A purchaser of land, at a collector's sale for taxes, cannot recover 
back the ccmsidemtion money, on failure of his title, without proof of ftaud ; 
and then, only from one, who is party to the fmud. Trtai v. Orono^ xxvi. 

32. Where a purchaser, at a collector's sale, for taxes, conveys the prem* 
ises to another, by a quitolaim deed, and the title, under the collector's deed, 
fails, the grantee, in such quitolaim deed, cannot recover back the purchase 
money, from his grantor, on the ground of a failure of consideration, without 
proof of a total foilure. Trtai v. Orano^ xxvi. 217. 

33. And, if such last purchaser has had possession of the premises, or has 
received rents and profits, or has otherwise derived any benefit, by virtue of, 
or in consequence of, his deed, he cannot recover back the consideration. 
Treat v. Oroiio, xxvi. 217. 


1. No action will lie against a stakeholder, for a sum of prize money, 
deposited with him, by the marshal, to be kept, until it should be legally 
determined, to which of several owners it belonged, till after the question of 
property was first settled among the claimants, by a judgment of law. U7- 
mer v. Pome, i. 84. 

2. Where the plaintifiT assigned certain notes to the defendant, as collateral 
security, for the payment of a debt due, and the defendant, by contract, un- 
der seal, agreed to reassign them, if the principal debt should be paid, or the 
collateral notes collected, before a certain day, neither of which was done ; it 
was held, that the defendant was not liable, in an action for money had and 
received, to the use of the plaintiff, to refund the excess of the collateral 
notes above the principal ; they not havii^ been collected till long after the 
time, fixed by the contract Trc^fUm v. Dore^ x. 434. 

3. Where an individual stockholder, in a corporation, has money accruing 
fix>m a sale of the corporate property, another stockholder cannot recover his 
proportion, in a suit against lum, unless the corporation have assented to the 
sale, and to a distribution of the proceeds^ among the shareholdera ; in which 
case, each may recover his share, in an action for money had and received, 
against the holder. Hod$dan v. Copeland^ xvi. 314. 

4. Where a master of a vessel, which he took on shares, transmitted to his 
father the earnings of a voyage, and the father had previously promised the 
owners, to forwanl to them tlwir half of the earnings, when received from his 

Digitized by 


AnwmunuT^ ui. nr. W 

son, it w«s heM, thait the ftither was liable to pay the owneni their share, Dot- 
withstanding the master had directed him to appropriate a part oi the amount^ 
in a different nMumer. WUliami v. Willianu^ xxuu 17. 

5. Where one purchased a piece of land of another, and retained a part of 
the consideration money, with wfaieh he agreed to pay a note, which had been 
given by Ae gcanlor to a third peiaoa, it was held, tiiat the tlnrd penon 
ini^ recoTer the amount of the note of the nantee, in an action lor money 
hadand received, to his use. Dearborn v. Parks^ y. 81. 

6. And this might be done, though the note were secured by a mortgage, 
and the agreement, by the defendant, was, to take up the iMortgage, and, by 
mismkft, & agreement specified a different lot, from the one actually incum- 
bered by the mortgage. SekiUinger v. McCcmm^ vi. 364. 

7. Where one promises another, for the benefit of a third person, sach 
tiiird person may maintain an aedon of assumpsit, thevefix', in his own name. 
Bmkhy v« FinBler^ xv. 285. 

See ArroEKBT, II. 4. 


1. Where, upon a settlement of mutual accoimts, a note was made, by mis- 
take, for twenty doUan more than was due. It was held, that the maker of 
the note might recover this sum, against the other, though the note still re- 
nidned unpiud. Dole v. Haydeuy i. 152. 

2. Where A. paid 81200^ on a contract for the purchase of real estate, 
and R advanced $500 more, for him, and the deed was made to B., on a 
verbal agreement, to release the land to A., on payment of the $500 ; it was 
held, that, upon refusal of the heirs of B. to rcconvey, the estate might be 
held liable to refund the $1200, paid by A., as money advanced by A. to 
B., to enable the latter to purchase the estate. Perkins v. Danfop, v. 268. 

3. Where a chose in action was assigned, and the debtor, upon being call- 
ed upon by the assignee, -said, he would pay him, if he was legally entitled 
to receive it ; it was held, that the assignee might avail himself of this promise, 
tmder a count for money had and received, on proving a legal assignment. 
Lasig ▼. FUke^ xi. 885. 

4. Where the plaintifT conveyed lo the defendant certain real^ estati^, in- 
cumbered with a mortgage, and the defendant agreed to pay, and take up'lhe 
plaintifr^s notes and mortgage, as part of the consideration, and gave his notes, 
with ^ mortgage, to the plaintiff, for the residue, and af^rwards neglected to 
take up the notes and mortgage, given by the plalntiflT; it was held, in an ac- 
tion, to recover the amount left m the defendanf s hands, to pay tfie plamtifTs 
note and mortgage, that the plaintiff, not having paid his note and mortgage, 
could recover oiuy nominal damages. Bwrhemk v. €romld^ xv. llS. 

5. Where the plaintiff conveyed to the defendant, land, worth $700, upon 
the defendant's parol promise, to pay $40, due from the plaintiff to a third 
person, and to reconvey the land to the plaintiff, upon being fully indemnified, 
for the payment of $40, and was afterwards fully indemnified by the plaintiff 
therefor, and again agreed by parol, to reconvey the land, but afterwards 
ea nvey ed it to another person, h was held, that, upon these facts, an action 
f<Hr money had and received, might be maintained, to recover back the sum 
paid by tiie plaintiff, for the indenuii^ of the defendant Greer v. Chreer^ 

Z7UL 16l 


Digitized by 



6. Mooey, depcmted in an instituticHi for sayings, to be repaid, at certaia 
tunes, prescrilied by its by-laws, may, on demand, in pursuance thereto, be 
sued, in assumpsit ; notwithstanding the institution, having invested its Amds 
in stocks, which have depreciated, is unable to pay the whole amount receiv* 
ed. Makin v. hutUuiion for Savi*g9^ xix. 128. 

7. By Stat 1834^ c. 132, ^ 4, an action for money had and received, may 
be maintained, to recover back usurious interest paid. WM v. WiUkirt^ 
XIX. 406. 

8. Where there are three joint signers of a promissory note, each one is prin- 
cipal, for one third, and surety, for the other two thirds. And, if ihe first pay 
the share of the second, he has a claim upon the third, for contribution of one 
half of the sum so paid ; and the third may recover back the amount, so 
contributed, from the second, for whose benefit it was paid, in an action for 
money had and received. Croodail v. WaUwarth^ xx. 322. 

9. If a person sell goods of another, without authority, and receive die 
money therefor, he is liable to the owner, in an action f<Nr money had and re- 
ceived, to his use. Higgins v. Brown^ xx. 332. 

10. And, if the owner claim the money, and it is, by mutual coneent, 
deposited with a stakeholder, to await a decision, in regard to their right of 
property, and ^ stakeholder afterwards deliver the money to the seller, with- 
out the privity of the owner, the seller becomes at once liable, without de- 
mand, to an action by the owner, for the money. Higgins v. Browu^ xx. 

11. Where the seller sends to the purchaser a different article from diat 
contracted for, and, on learning the fact, directs it to be sent back by the 
first ship, and it is sent, in conformity to the directions, but is lost at sea ; the 
purchaser may recover back the consideration money paid, though no bill of 
lading was taken, nor letter of advice sent SHnson v. WaUcer^ xxi. 211. 

12. In an action for money had and received, where the plaintiff claims the 
price of a quantity of his baric taken and sold by the defendant, it is only 
necessary to prove, that the defendant had token and sold his bark, and re- 
ceived payment therefor, without showing that the payment was in money. 
Hathaway v. ftirr, xxi. 567. 

13. If, in taking and selling the bark, the defendant acted as agent of 
another, it will not be presumed, without proof, that the money had been paid 
over to the principal, unless the nature of the business would lead to that pre- 
sumption. Hathaway v. Burr^ xxi. 567. 

14. If the bills of a bank, reputed sound, and so believed, by both parties, 
be paid in exchange tor other bills, when the bank had actually failed, the loss 
of the bills is to be borne by the payer. The rule, where both parties are 
equally innocent, that, partior est conditio defendentisj does not apply to 
eases of money paid by mistake. Frontier Bank v. Morse^ xxii. 88. 

15. If one of two joint owners of a bond of land induce the other to sell 
to him, by a folse affirmation, that he had contracted to sell his own share to a 
third person, for the same price, and, af^rwards sells the whc^e to the same 
third person at an advanced price, the first seller cannot recover from his 
grantee the difierence in the sales, in an action for money had and received* 
Hilton V. HomanSj xxiii. 136. 

16. Where parties enter into an agreement in writing, in relation to certain 
business between them, one cannot mamtain an action for money had and 
received, against the other, to recover money, received in the business, under 
the agreement, so Icmg as it remains open and executory. Banks v. Adaam^ 
xxiii. 259. 

Digitized by 


▲SSVKPtlT, IT. T. n 

17. Where, is a eotdemoBt of accoiDits, ihe defeDdant had chained a sum 
of money, as haring been indorsed on a note, given to him by one of the 
phdntifis, but which had not in fact been so indorsed , and the defendant had 
brought a suit upon the note, and recovered, upon default, the full auKMint 
thereof, the action having been once continued, the attorney, who answered 
to that action, and the present plaintiff, then supposing that the indorsement 
had been made, it was held, that the amount might be recovered back. 
Osgood V. JoneSj xxiii. 312. 

18. An offer to indorse the amount upon the execution, at the time of the 
trial to recover back the money, does not vary the rights of the parties. 0«- 
good ▼. /onet, xxuu 312. 

19. Where a note, payable in twelve months, was given, as a consideration 
of a written promise of the payee, to convey a ship to the maker, at a future 
day, and the payee forthwith sold the note, for its amount in money, and 
aflterwards the original contract was rescinded ; it was held, that the maker of 
the note might recover the amount, of the payee, before the lapse of the 
twelve m<mths. Chapman v. Shaw^ v. 59. 

20. Where the plaintiff delivered to the defendant certain notes, to be appro* 
prialed, when collected, in part payment of notes, held by the defendant 
against the plaintiff, secured by mortgage ; and, aflerwards, a settlement was 
hod, between the parties, in which diese notes were not accounted for, the 
defendant stating that they had not been collected ; and covenanting, on such 
settlement, that he would not require any further payments on the notes, 
against the plaintiff, unless disturbed in the enjoyment of the mortgaged es- 
tate ; it was held, that the plaintiff, on proof, that the defendant had collected 
these notes, previous to the settlement, might recover the amount, in an ac* 
tion against him, for money had and received. Scott v. Williamson^ xxiv. 

See Assignment, II. (d) 6, 7. 
Joint Tenants, &c. III. 2. 



(b) Wher£ there is an express contract. 

' (a) Where there hat been no express contract, 

1. Assampsit will not lie for use and occupatbn of land unless, upon some 
contract, express or implied. And a contract will not be implied, where the 
tenant contests the title of the other party. Curtis v. Treaty xxu 525. Wp- 
sMm V. Hook^ II. 397. Porter v. Hooper^ xi. 170. 

% Where the heirs at law of a deceased person, by an agreement under 
seal, made a partitiim of the estate, designating, in general terms, the part to 
be assigned to mush, but providing for a future survey, plan, and division 
deed, for the completion of the partition ; and thereupon, the parties took 
possession and occupied, each, his several portion, thus designated, without 
any such survey, plan, or deed, for more than thirty years ; and afterwards, 
a will was found, and duly pK>ved, by which the ancestor had devised the 
whole land to one of them, in fee ; it was held, that this possession by the 
odien, being founded in mistake, the law raised an implied promise, in each 
of them, to pay a reasooaUe rent to the devisee, for the portion of the land, 
so occupied. Jordan v. Jordan^ iv. 175. 

Digitized by 


06 AflnmpsiT, r. 

8. A promise may be implied, on the part of a coq>omtioii, from die acts 
of its agent, whose powers are of a general character. Abbot v. HermoHj 
VII. 118. 

4. So, where one built a school house, under a contract, with persons as- 
suming to act, as a district committee, but without authority ; yet a district 
school was afterwards kept in it, by direction of the school agent ; this was 
held to be an acceptance of the house, on the part of the district, binding the 
inhabitants, to pay the reasonable value of the building. Abbot v. Hermony 
VII. 118. 

5. If one accepts, or knowingly avails himself, of the benefit of services 
done for him, without his authority or request, he is held to pay a reasonable 
compensation therefor. Abbot v. Herman^ vii. 118. 

6. If a person build a bridge across a stream, on a public road, within a 
plantation, afler having been notified, by the assessors, and other inhabitants, 
not to do so, at the expense of such plantation, he cannot recover the value 
of the bridge, against the plantation, on an implied promise, by proving, that 
the inhabitants made use of the Imdge, in traveling the road. KtunoUon v. 
Plantation No. 4, xiv. 20. 

7. If the assessors of such plantation had visited such bridge, from time 
to time, when building, without explanation, on their part, this might be strong 
evidence, from which a promise, by the plantation, to pay for it, might be 
implied ; but no such implication could be had, against their express declara- 
tion. KnowUon v. Plantation No, 4, xiv. 20. 

8. Where a minor son had left the house of his father, against his will, but, 
on being taken sick, had returned, and had been received by him ; the father 
was held liable to the physician, for medical attendance upon the son, at the 
father^s house, with his knowledge and assent, on an implied promise. Deane 
V. Annis^ xiv. 26. 

9. Where one had given a bond to another, to furnish him with support, 
but neglected to perform, and the support is furnished by a third person, at 
the request of the obligee ; such third person cannot recover the value of 
such support, against the obligor, <m an implied promise. Moody v. Moody ^ 
XV. 307. 

10. If a man builds a house on the land of another, by his permission, and 
is not prevented from occupying or removing the house, he cannot maintain 
assumpsit therefor, though the owner convey the land to another. Taphy v. 
Smith, xviii. 12. 

11. The hirer of a chattel cannot, without special authority, create a liability 
of the owner, for cost of repairs, or supplies, furnished by direction of the 
hirer, to aid him in deriving advantage from the thing hired. Cutler v. Thwrloy 
XX. 213. 

12. This principle applies to the cose of a mortgagee of a ship, though the 
register, or enrelmcnt, stand in his name, if the possession, control, aid in- 
come of the vessel remain in the mortgager ; — and of a general owner of a 
vessel, who has made a bargain, to sell her to another, and has delivered up 
the control of the vessel, and her earnings, to the purchaser ; such mortga- 
gee or general owner are not liable for repairs or supplies, fumbhed by di- 
rection of the mortgager, or purchaser, or a master, acting under their order. 
Cutler V. Tkurlo, xx. 218. 

18. Where the directors of a proprietary, acting within the scc^ of their 
authority, contracted with a person^ under their own seals, to pay him a 
certain sum, for materials, to be furnished by him, it was held, that, when 

Digitized by 


fttt Pia K ed, he might maiatain aasumprnt, against the proprietary, for tho price. 
Cr€m T. Bangor House proprietary^ xii. 854. 

14. Where the plaintiff repaired a vessel, and afterwards requested pay- 
ment therefor from the defendant, whom he supposed to be the owner, and 
the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, that he held the vessel only for security, and 
that it did not belong to hiin to pay any bills on her, but, that he was holden 
for them, and requested the plaintiff to take an order on a third person for the 
amount ; this was held to be sufficient, to authorize a jury to find a verdict 
for the plaintiff, and the increased value of the security was a sufficient con- 
aideratioa for the promise. Oakes v. Cuihing^ xjliv. 313. 

15. A school district cannot be considered as promising to pay for unau- 
thorized repairs upon th^ school house, by using it afterwards. Davis v. 
Bradford^ xziv. 349. 

16. Where one performs servkses for the benefit, and with the knowledge, 
of another, but with no express agreement or employment, the law implies a 
promise to pay a reasonable compensation. Weston v. Davis^ xxiv. 874. 

17. Where one of two persons, jointly interested, requests a third person to 
perform services for them, he may be presumed to have done so, in behalf of 
both, unless there be some&ing to indicate a dififerent intention. Weston v. 
Ikans^ xxrv. 874. 

18. Where one intends to give credit to two persons, that intention, to af!ect 
them, should be made known, expressly, or by inference from the circum- 
stances of the transaction. Weston v. boots ^ xxiv. 374. 

(b) Where there has been an express contract, 

1. One contracted to build a road for a town, at a stipulated sum ; one half 
to be paid, at the completion of the road, and the other half, in a year after ; 
he made the largest portion of the road ; having under let a portion of it, 
which was not completed, and the town, with the knowledge of the facts, 
made the first payment, without objection. After the expiration of the year, 
and before the whole was completed, he sued for the stipulated price, count- 
bg upon the special contract, and on a quantum meruit ; and it was held, that 
the payment of the first instalment was a waiver, by the town, of the terms 
of the special contract, and entitled the plaintiff to recover on the quantum 
mermt, for as mvtch as was completed. Hay den v. Madison^ ni. 76. 

2. Where the promiser, in a note, payable' in specific articles, performed 
services for the holder, which he accepted, in payment of the note, but after- 
wards sold it to a third person ; it was held, that an action could not be main- 
tained, by. the promiser, for his services, as they would still constitute a de- 
fence to an action on the note. Joy v. Foss^ viii. 455. 

3. H. delivered to A. six cows, which, by parol agreement, were to be 
returned, at the end of two years, or their value in money, unless A. should 
be dissatisfied with an exchange of farms, between them ; in which case, the 
cows were to remain the property of A. At the end of two years, A. express- 
ed himself satisfied with the trade, but refused to deliver the cows, or pay 
their value. Held, that the transaction amounted to a sale, and, that, even if 
the contract were within the statute of frauds, H. could recover, on the gene- 
ral counts, what the cows were reasonably worth. Holhrook v. Armstrongs 
X. 31. 

4. Where there has been a special contract, the contractor cannot recover, 
ia indebkatos assumpsit, the stipulated price, unless there has been a corn- 

Digitized by 


70 AMVMFnrtf r. 

plete performance, on his part ; nor then, if the terms of the contract woM 
thereby be infringed. Mar$haU t. Jones^ zi. 54. 

5. Where indebitatus assumpsit is brought, on the ground of performance 
of a special contract, such contract may be introduced in eridence, by die 
defendant, to show, that he is liable to others, as well as to the plaintiff; or, 
that the plaintiff had not performed ; or, that the rule of damages have been 
agreed upon, by the parties. Marshall r. Janes^ xi. 54. 

6. By a contract, the plaintiff agreed to transport, in his Teasel, a quantity 
of timber from N. to B., for a stipulated price, the 'defendant agreeing to aid 
and assist, iu unlading, at the port of destination. In an action of general 
indebitatus assumpsit, or quantum titermty for the freight, it was h^, &it ihe 
plaintiff could not recover damages, for detentioQ of the vessel at B., ocea- 
sioned by the defendant's refusing to aid and assist in the unlading. EbukM 
V. Brewer^ xi. 258. 

7. In an action of indebitatus assumpsit, for labor, in building a house, the 
plaintiff was permitled to mtroduce a special c<»^ract, the existence of which 
had been proved in the defence, to abow^ that, its terms not having been com- 
plied with, no action could be maintained thereon ; and also, to serve as a 
guide to the jury, in assessing damages ; the defendant having accepted and 
occupied the house. Jewett v. Weston^ xi. 346. 

8. Though such special contract was made with two, and the labor whoHy 
performed by one, it would not necessarily result, that the action, in this form, 
should have been Inrought in the name of him alone, who did the labor. Jeuh 
eit y.Wetton^ xi. 346. 

9. A. purchased goods of B., and, in payment, transferred to him the note 
of C, agreeing, that if C. did not pay, on presentment of the note, he would 
pay it himself. Held, that, af^r preseDtment and refusal, and notice to A., 
with a tender of the note, B. might maintain indebitatus assumpsit against 
him, for the price of the goods. Pool v. 7W<Z«, xi. 468. 

10. Where work is performed, and materiab furnished, under a special 
contract, but not in the manner stipulated, yet, if they are of any value and 
benefit to the other party, he is answerable, to the amount of the benefit, de- 
rived by him, in indebitatus assumpsit or debt. Norru v. Windsor^ xii. 

11. Where the inhabitants of a school district, in a suit against them, for 
building a school house, repudiated the special contract, upon which the actioa 
was founded, denying that they had accepted it, though executed by the 
plaintiff; and it was proved, that the district had agreed to build the house, 
raised money, chosen a committee to superintend it, and all had seen the 
work progress, without objection ; it was held, that they were liable to pay 
what it was worth, though not built according to the terms of the special con- 
tract And the plaintiff's claim was not affected by the fact, that the district 
did not own the land, upon which it was built ; it appearing, that the spot had 
been designated by vote of the district. Norris v. Windsor^ xii. 293. 

12. Where a written lease of land is made, for a stipulated time, an action 
of assumpsit, for use and occupation, cannot be maintained, for rent accrued 
during the term of the lease. Gage v. Smithy xiv. 466. 

13: Where labor has been performed, under a special contract, so uncer- 
tain and unintelligible, in its terms, that it cannot be understood, the law will 
imply a promise to pay a fair value of the services. Cobb v. Stevens^ xiv. 

14. Where, by a written contract, one party had agreed to build a house. 

Digitized by 


AumtMmy ▼. Ti. 71 

mi the odier party had aoieed to pay a certain sum tfaerefor« and die con* 
tract was afterwards abandoned ; and the party first named, had built a house 
dot the other person, and two others ; it was held, that an express contract 
need not be proved, but might be implied ; and, that the price for buildmg the 
ho^se was not to be ascertained from that fixed in the written contract 
TebbeU v. Haskins, xvi. 383. 


L It seems, that referees need not join, in an action, to recover compen- 
saticm for their services. Butman v. Abbotj ii. 361. 

2. An action by a refin^ee, to recover compensation for his services, nnist 
be against the person making the demand, and not against the parties to the 
snbmisnon, jointly. Butman v. Abbots ii. 361. 

8. If two be sued on a joint promise, and one alone appears, the general 
isBoe should be, that he and the other defenckint did not promise, &c. ; but, if 
he plead, that he alone did not promise, and, upon iMue taken, it be fo«dkl 
for the plamtiff, whether the defendant can reverse the judgment for this errorf 
dMtatur. Butman v. Abbot, ii. 361. 

4. In an action upon a note, not negotiable, the defendant pleaded an at- 
tachment of the debt, in his hsjids, by trustee process against the plaintiff, and 
judgment thereon, in full force ; and, at a subsequent term, the plaintiff re* 
plied, that the execution on that jud^^nent having been returned unsatisfied, 
the defendant had made a disclosure upon a scire facias, and had been dis* 
charged : the replication was held good, though the judgment upon the scire 
facias was subsequent to the filing of the plea. Sargeant v. Andrews, iii. 

5. Where a person, being liable to two or more, upon a joint contract, set- 
tles with one of them, so far as that one is concerned ; the cause of action is 
thereby changed from joint to several ; and the party becomes liable to each 
of the others, for their separate damages. Holland v. WM, iv. 255. 

6. The land agent cannot maintain an action, in his own name, upon a pro- 
missory note, not negotiable, given to him, in his official capacity, for timber 
bebnging to the state. Irish v. Webster, v. 171. 

7. An action, by a female, for breach of promise of marriage was com- 
promised, by her attorney, by taking the defendant's promissory note, payable 
to her by her maiden name, after her marriage to another person, of which 
feet, the attorney and defendant were both ignorant Held, mat an action, by 
the husband, in his own name, upon the note, could be sustaii^. TempUtcn 
V. Cram,y. 417. 

8. In assumpsit, the defendant, under the general issue, may prove, that 
there are other persons, jointly interested with the plaintiff, who should have 
been joined ; and it is not necessary to plead such matter in abatement 
MarshaU v. Jones, xi. 54. 

9. In an action on a promissory note, payable at a particular time and 
' place, it is not necessary to aver or prove a presentment, at such time and 

place ; and if such averment be made, it may be stricken out, and leave a 
sufficient declaration. Remick v. O^Kyle, xii. 340. Bacon v. Djfer, xii. 19. 

10. In assumpsit, it is a general rule, that where too many defendants are 
sued, the plaintiff must prove a promise by all, or he will fall in the action. 
Cutts V. Gordon, xiii. 474. kedingion v. Farrar, v. 379* 

11. But, if one of the defendants pleads, and proves, his infency, upon a 

Digitized by 


73 AtsmfPsiTy Ti. 

trial, the jury may find a verdict for the infimt, and for the plaintiff agaioat 
the other defendajitB ; and judgment may he rightly rendered <m auch Terdict. 
Cutis y. Crordon^ xiii. 474. 

12. A town order, drawn by the selectmen, upon the treasurer, and pre* 
sented to him for payment, and refused, is good eridence to support a count, 
on an inHnud comptUasseiU^ against the town. Vomer v. Noblehoramgh^ lu 

13. Parol evidence is inadmissible, to prove a mistake in the computation 
of the amount, for which a recognizance of debt was taken, so as to enable 
the conusor, after having paid the money, to recover back the excess. Mor* 
ton V. Clumdlerj vii. 44. 

14. In assumpsit, on account annexed to the writ, the defendant may prove 
payment, in money, goods, or services, of any part of the plaintiff ^s account, 
though he may not luive filed any account in set-<»ff. PiUlmnf v. Fenudd^ 
X. 168. 

15. Where a plaintiff, in such action, produced his books of account, in 
maintenance of his action, the defendant was held entitled to the benefit of 
any credits to him, found therein, ^Kmgh not emlnraced in his account filed in 
setH^. PiUhury v. Femald, x. 168. 

16. The disclosure of a trustee is not evidence for him, in another action, 
in favor of one, not a party to the trustee process. Edmond v. CaldwcU^ 
XV. 840. 

17. Where the plaintiff made a contract with a person, to erect a mill and 
bam on a township of wild land, owned by the plaintiff, and, before they 
were finished, three of the defendants, when exploring the land, said to the 
contractor, that *^ if they should purchase, they wished him to carry out the 
contract he had made with the plaintiff, in the same way, as if the plaintiff 
had continued to own the land^' ; and the purchase was made by all the de- 
fendants ; and, afterwards, two of them signed a paper, directed to the plain- 
tiff, that, ^ agreeably to our understanding, we believe it right you ^ould 
account to^ the contractor, for a certain specified amount, ^ it being due him 
from you or us,'^ and the plaintiff paid that sum, and brought a suit to recover 
it back ; it was held, that the evidence was not sufiicient to maintain the ac- 
tion. EustU V. Hall^ XXI. 975. 

18. If the obligor makes an express promise of performance to an assignee 
of a bond, the assignee may maintain assumpsit, in his own name, upon such 
promise ; and the assignment of the bond is a good consideration for such 
promise. Warren v. Wheelery xxi. 484. 

19. In such action, evidence of the value of other land, whether in the 
neighborhood, or more remote, and the value of particular portions of the 
land in question, and the estimate of the witnesses, as to what price the whole 
tract could have been sold for, based upon the market value of other lands, 
in the same town, at the time, may be received as circumstantial evidence of 
the value. Wetrren v. Wheeler^ xxi. 484. 

20. Where the plaintiff, in assumpsit for use and occupation, alleged him- 
self to be sole owner of the premises, by assignment from M., and the de- 
fendant pleaded that M. was the legal owner, with whom he had entered into 
a rule of submission of the same subject matter, on which judgment had been 
rendered against the defendant, the amount of which judgment he now 
tendered to the plaintiff, as the subsequent assignee of M^s claim for rent, 
with costs ; the plea was held bad, for want of a traverse of the plaintiff^s 
title, as set forth in the declaration. Smith v. Holly viii. 348. 

Digitized by 



21. To ra&iatain an aetion for goods sold and deliTered, the plaintiff mtist 
prove the contract of sale, the delivery of the goods, or such a disposition of 
them, as will he equivalent to it ; and their value ; and, if diere he no proof 
of payment, ^ presumption of the common hiw is, that they vere sold on 
credit Ednmmds v. Wtggin^ xxiv. 505. 
See Abatbmbnt, I. (c) 3. 

Actions, dsc. L 8, 5, 18, 14 
Attorhbt, II. 8. 



(•) Gbrbkal paiirciPLM. 



(a) Nboliobmcb oa miidoihoi of the opFicBa. 

(b) Lapib op timb. 

(c) AjiEir»MBHT«. 

(d) Othbrwisb. 



(a) Interest op tub debtor. 

(b) Rights ahd duties op the ofpicbr. 

(e) Powers ard liabilities op a bailee or receipter. 



1. A mortgaged chattel is not liable to attachment, nor seizure on execu- 
tion, for a debt of the mortgager, until the debt secured thereby has been 
paid, or tendered to the mortgagee. Holbrook ▼ Baker ^ v. 909. 

2. The manure on a farm, in the possession of a tenant at Mrill, is liable, 
during the continuance of the tenancy, to be seised, and sold on execution, 
for the payment of his debts. Staples t. Emery ^ vii. 201. 

S. Where a farm was leased at will, with an agreement, that the hay, that 
may be cut thereon, should be holden, by the lessor, as security, till the rent 
shoold be paid ; and the tenant cut the hay, and put it into the bam, upon the 
&rm, but no actual delivery was made to the lessor, it was held liable to at- 
tachment, for the debts of the tenant Bailey v. FiUebrown^ iz. 12. Sher- 
home Y. JaneSj zx. 70. 

4. Where property was pledged, to indemnify a person from his liability, 
m consequence of having given a receipt to an officer, for property attached, 
on a writ against the pledger, the property, so pledged, is not liable to be 
attached, on a writ against the pledger, whilst the liability of the pledgee con- 
tmues. 'I%omp$cn v. Stevens^ x. 27. 


Digitized by 



6. A mill saw is nol a ioolt exempt £rom attaehweat. BmidMter v. 
Sfu^tleigh, X. 185. 

6. Before the stat 1885, c 188, chattels, mider a pledge, cook! not be 
attached, as the property of the pledger, without conaent of the pledgee, 
aAer a tender of tne amount, for which they were pledged. Sargmt t. CarTj 
Tsu 89e. 

7. G. delivers his horse to P., with liberty to exchange it for another, pro- 
vided G. should approve ihe bargain. P. made an exchange, paying difler> 
ence money, and taking the sec^ horse into his poa w as ioo ; and it was 
attached, as his properhr, and leA in his hands, on his procuring a receioter. 
Afterwards he delivered the horse to G., who approved the exchange, and re* 
oeived it as his own, bemg ignorant of the attachment Held, that the officer 
could not hold the horse, against G. CkmrckiU v. Bmhf^y xiii. 64. 

8. A debtor is not entitled to have hay, exempt from attachment, for thQ 
use of sheep, unless he have the sheep, at ihe time of the attadiment Fpss 
V. SUwarty XIV. 812. 

9. Cloth, carried to a tailor, to be made into a coat, and cut out, is exempt 
from attachment Ordway v. Wilbur^ xn. 268. 

10. Where a debtor has three swine one only of which weighs more than 
one hundred pounds, this one is exempted finom attachment Wemtmorik v. 
Yomngy xvit 70. 

11. The debtor has no necessity to make an election, of which he will re- 
tain, except where he has two swme, each weighing more thm one hundred 
pounds. Wmtworth v. Yowng^ xni. 70. 

12. The right of redemption, of mortgaged persoiml property, is attach- 
able, by virtue of stat 1885, c. 188. Sawyer v. JMaton, xix. 49. 

18. But this statute does not authorize an officer, to attach, and remove^ 
such property, without first paying or tendering payment of the amount, se- 
cured by the mortgage. Without such payment or tender, an attachment 
can only be made, where it can be effected, without depriving the mortgagee 
of the actual possession, or, of the right to take immediate possession. Paul 
V. Hayfardy xxii. 234. Wolfe v. Dw*, xxrv. 104. Barker v. Chase^ xxrv. 
280. Smith V. SmUk^ xxiv. 555. 

14. Where, by ^ terms of a lease for years, the lessor was to furnish 
certain stock, sufficient to eat up all the hay, that trfunild grow on tibe farm, 
and should have half of the increase of the stock, and half of all the produce, 
it was held, that the hay, after having been harvested by the lessee, was liabla 
to attachment, as his property. TWw v. Batcheldery xvn. 257. 

15. Where a tenant agrees to cultivate and bag the crop of hops for the 
year, in pinrment for Ae rent of the rest of the fieurm, the hops remain the 
property of the landlord, and are not liable to attachment, on a writ against 
the tenant KeUy v. Weston^ xx. 282. 

16. Where a tenant occupied, under a sealed agreement for a conveyance 
to him, when paid for, and that the produce should be the owner's, tiU the pay- 
ment i^uld be made, but that the tenant shoukl have the management there- 
of, and that whatever the same might net, and be realized therefrom, by the 
owner, should be credited towards pa3rment for the farm ; it was held, diat the 
hay was attachable, as the property of the tenant Garland v. HUbonh 
xziii. 442. 

17. A barrel of flour, purchased by the debtor, and manufactured from 
grain, of which he had never been the owner, is not exempted (torn attaoi»> 
ment Tucker v. Lane^ xxin. 587. 

Digitized by 


ATTAonmnr, i. ii. 75 

18. Private property of stockholders in corpomtiom is not attachable, by 
Tirtue of stat 1836) c 200, § 3, on a writ against the corporation. The 
creditor must obtain a judgment against the corporation, befcnre he can pur- 
sue his remedy against tlM stockholders. DrinkwaUr v. Portland Morin$ 
RaUtoay^ xyiii. 35. 

19. A creditor of one of a firm may attach their goods, so far as his debtor 
has an interest therein, subject to the paramount claims of the creditors of the 
firm. Douglas v. Winslow^ xz. 89. 

See Dowsa, 1, 2. 


(a) GsirxRAL priitciplks. 

(b) Pbesohal bstatb. 
(g) Rial bitatx. 

(a) General prUieiples. 

1. In real actions, no lien can be created, by attachment of prc^rty. 
Holmes v. Femaldy vii. 232. 

2. An attachment of real estate is void, where it appears, from an inspec- 
tion of the respective dates, on the record, that the attachment, by the officer, 
was prior to the making the writ Berry v. Spears xiii. 187. 

3. The return of an <^£cer is mily prima facie eridence of an attachment, 
m trial of an action, to which he is a party. Nichols v. PaUen^ zviii. 231. 
Waterhouse v. Smith, xxu. 337. 

(b) Validity of an attachment of personal estate. 

1. To constitute an attachment, it is not necessary, that the officer should 
handle the goods attached, but he must be in view of them, with the power 
of controling them, and of taking them into his possession ; and he should 
take measures to prevent an inteHerence, or possession by others. Nichols 
V. Patten, xnii. 231. 

2. If an officer be ordered, in the writ, to attach a specified amount, and 
be attach personal property, by him valued at a greater sum, it does not 
necessarily follow, Uiat he acted oppressively, or illegally, and, if a subse- 
quent purchaser take it from the possession of the debtor, the officer or his 
servant may retake it from him. MerriU v. Curtis, xviii. 272. 

3. To preserve an attachment of property, of the description, mentioned 
in Stat 1821, c. 60, § 34, if leA in possession of the debtor, it is not neces- 
sary to prove affirmatively, that the receiptor acted at the request of the 
debtor. MerriU v. Curtis, xviii. 272. 

4. Where goods, attached, are left in the possession, and under the control 
of the debtor, by the officer making the attachment, a second attachment, by 
another c^cer, will be valid, though he had notice of the prior attachment 
Goiter V. Stevens, xix. 92. 

5. Where property is described, in a mortgage, as a " store (standing on 
land of another) and all the goods, wares, and merchandize, in and about the 
same,** and the mortgager's right of redeeming it is attached, as the right 
of re<teemingthe property described in the mortgage, this is a sufficient de- 
scription* Wolfe T. Dorr, xxiv. 104. 

See Offices, I. (d) 13. 

Digitized by 



(c) Validiti^ of an aUachmmU^ ef real estaU. 

1. An actual entry, by the officer, on real estate, is not necessary to o 
valid attachment. Crosbjf v. Allyn^ v. 453. 

2. An attachment of all the debtor^s " right, title, and interest^ in any real 
estate, in the town of B., is a good attachment of his share of land, held in 
common with others, in that town ; and the lien, thereby created, continues 
therecm, though his share be changed to a several tenancy, pending the at* 
tachment (A^oAy v. AUyn^ v. 4&3. 

3. The title of an execution creditor, under a levy upon reid estate, is 
not affected, by notice of a prior conveyance, not recorded, the creditor having 
no knowledge thereof, at the time of the attachment upon the writ Emermm 
v. Little/ieldj xii. 148. 

4. By Stat 1838« c. 344^ § 4, (Rev. St c. 114, § 33,) no attachment of 
real estate is valid, unless the plaintiff's demand, on wnich he founds his 
action, and the nature and amount therec^, are substantially set forth, in 
proper counts, or a specification of such claims is annexed to the writ JPenr- 
hank$ V. Sianlejf, xviii. 296. 

5. A debtor owned a grist mill and privilege ; another tract of land of fiAy 
acres, on which was a house and bam ; and another tract of three acres, 
near, but not adjoining, the last tract, having a dwelling house, in which he 
lived, also a bani and other buildings, and which the jury foimd, was not a 
part of the farm, att in the town of Wayne : — an officer returned, on the 
writ, that he had ^^ attached all the real estate of the within named (debtor) ; 
to wit> all the right and interest, he owns in the grist nailU and stream the said 
mill stands on, in the town of Wayne, and his farm, with his dwelling house, 
and all other buildings thereon, in said Wayne, in said county** : — it was 
held, that the general words in the first clause of the return were restricted » 
and applied to the grist mitt and water only : — 

That it was a question for a jury to determine, what tract of land constitute 
ed his farm, there being no particular description : — 

That the statement, that his dwelling house was on the farm, was not con- 
clusive, that the land, on which the dwelling house stood, was a part of the 
farm; — 

And, that the dwelling house, in which the debtor lived, was not attached, 
unless it was upon the rarm. Leadbetter v. Blethen^ xviii. 327. 

6. Ad attachment of all the debtor's ^^ right, title, and interest, in and to 
any real estate, in the county of P^ is valid, and hokls all his real estate, in 
that county, subject to attachment in that suit, and, of which he has convey- 
ed his title, by deed not recorded, nor notified to the creditor* RoberU v. 
Bourne^ xxiii. 165. Veazie t. Parkery xxiii. 170* 

7. The title of an attaching creditor is not affected by any knowledge, 
which the officer may have had, of a prior conveyance of the same land, 
made by the debtor, to another person, though such knowledge may have 
been communicated to the creditor, after the attachment, and before the ex* 
tent Stanley v. Perky ^ v. 369. Kent v. Plwnmer^ vii. 464. 

8. Nor is the title of the creditor afiected, by any knowledge, which his 
attorney of record in the suit, in which he is retained, may have had, of such 
prior convejrancc. Lawrence v. Tucker^ vii. 195. 

9. But, if the grantee have taken possession, and occupy the land himself, 
or by a tenant, other than the grantor, this is implied notice of title, and will 
protect it from attachment, by the creditors of the grantor. Kmt v. Pivmt- 
mer^ vii. 464. 

Digitized by 


ii« m. T7 

10. If an officer retun an attachment of land, as supposed to belong to 
the debtor, such qualifying tenn does not impair the efiect of ihe attachment, 
if the land really belong to the debtor. Banuter v. Higginson^ xv. 73. 

11. An attachment of real estate, upon a writ, containing but ooe general 
count for mcmey had and received, without any bill of particulars, was valid, 
if made prior to stat 1838, c. 344. That statute does not apply to attach- 
mentB made before it was in force. Smith v. Keemy xxn. 411. 



(b) Lapis op tihb. 

(c) Amkhdhxiiti. 

(d) Othsrwiib. 

(a) Negligence or miedoinge of ike ofker. 

1. To preserve an attachment^ when made, the officer, personally, or by 
agent, must retain his control and power of taking immediate possession, 
when the property is of such a nature, as to be capable of being so taken, 
except cases, where the statute prescribes a different rule. If the officer 
neglect to do so, the attachment will be dissolved. Nichols v. Patten^ xvin. 
231. Gower v. SUverUy xix. 92. Waterhouse v. Smith, xxii. 337. PiJs- 
bury V. SwoW, xix. 436. Weston v. DotTj xxv. 176. 

2. The mere request, to a person, to give notice of the attachment, would 
not be sufficient, unless he consented to assume the trust of taking charge of 
the goods, for the officer. Nichols v. Patten^ xviii. 231. 

3. Where the lien, acquired by an attachment, is dissolved, by delivery of 
the property attached, to the debtor, such lien does not revive, upon his re- 
gainmg possession, by delivery from such debtor, though it be delivered to 
him, with the intent, that it may be appropriated towards the pa3rment of the 
debt, on which it had been attached. Gower v. Stevens^ xix. 92. 

4. If there be an actual attachment, aud it is immediately abandoned, it 
becomes a nullity, and must be considered, as if none had been made, and a 
return of an attachment, in such case, would, in substance, be a false return. 
French v. Stanley^ xxi. 512. 

5. It may well be doubted, whether, af\er an officer has attached property, 
on a writ, and leA it, without removal, in the hands of the debtor, on taking 
a receipt, to redeliver it, on demand, or to mak e pa yment therefor, can retake 
it, without consent of die owner or receiptor. Weston v. Dorr^ xxv. 176. 

See ExscimoN, 11. (f ) 5. 

(b) Lapse of time. 

1. The lien, created by the attachment of goods, on mesne process, is dis- 
solved, if the goods be not seized on the execution, within thirty days after 
the rendition of judgment Wheeler v. Fishy xii. 241. Small v. HutchinSy 
XIX. 25&. 

2. If the officer, who made the attachment, has ceased to be in office, and 
no demand have been made upon him, within thirty days after judgment, he 
is dischai^ed from all liability to the creditor, by reason of the attachment 
Norris v. Bridghamy xiv. 429. 

8. An attachment of the interest of a debtor, by virtue of a bond, for the 

Digitized by 


78 ATTACmOBVT. m. 

amveyttDoe of foal eilftle, m di— ohrad, by fiifliire to sell tbe right, ni the 
mode, prescribed in itat 1829, c 481. Aihm y. Medex^ xr. 157. 

4. Where an officer attaches goods, and takes a receipt for tfiem, and, hay- 
ing the execntioB, demands HSb goods of the receipter, within thirty days 
a&r rendition of judgment, the attachment is not dissohred ; and the receipler 
may, after the ezpiiation of the thirty days, take the goods, and deliver them 
to the officer, to be sold on execution, merrill v. (autHs^ xvni. 372. 

5. The admission, on the back of the receipt, given by the bailees of per- 
sonal property, to an officer, who had attadied them, of a ^ due and legal 
demand,^ is not sufficient proof of the continuance of the lien upon the pro* 
perty, or, that the demand was made, within thirty da3r8 from the rendition of 
judjpnent PawUs y. Pindar^ xix. 420. 

(c) AwiemdmetUs. 

1. Pending an action of assumpsit, the parties made a settlement of all 
their accounts, including some demands, for which the writ contained no pro- 
per counts, and some, which were not payable, till after the action was com- 
menced ; and a balance was found due to the plaintiff, for which judgmmit 
was entered by consent ; held, that the lien, created by the attachment, upon 
die writ, was dissolved in toto, as against subsequent attaching creditors. 
Clark V. Fwecrofi^ vn. 848. 

2. Property can be attached only to secure die demand sued ; and, if other 
demands are afterwards introduced, die attachment will not be good against 
subsequent attachments. Fadrhanks v. SUaUeif^ xviii. 296. 

8. Where a writ certains the money counts, there may be difficulty in de- 
termining what demands were sued; but, in the absence of contradictoiy 
proof, those will be considered in suit, which the plaintiff owned, and were 
payable, and liable to be introduced, and were in &ot introduced, and judg- 
ment rendered there<Mi. Fairbtmki v. SUaUeif^ xviii. 296. 

4. If a writ be altered, after service, by attachment of property, and giving 
a summons, this does not exonerate the officer from die duty of keeping the 
property safely, that it may be applied to satisfy the judgment, if for the 
plamtiff, or to be returned to the defendant CkUds v. Horn, xxiu. 74. 

(d) Otherwiie. 

1. The sulmiission of an action, and idl demands between the parties, to 
referees, dissolves an attachment of property, made in that action, whether 
other demands are in fact exhibited to the referees, or not Mooney v. Kav^ 
amagh^ ly. 277. 

2. An assignment, by an insolvent debtor, in another jurisdiction, for the 
benefit of his creditors, will not be permitted to operate upon property in this 
state, to defeat an attachment by a creditor residing herew Fox v. Adanu^ 
V. 246. 

8. The mere insolvency of a copartnership is sufficient to defeat an attach- 
ment of the partnership effects, by a creditor of one of the firm, although the 
partnership creditors have commenced no action for the recovery of their 
debts ; and an officer, who has attached partnership effects, at the suit of a 
creditor of one partner, and afterwards delivers them up, to be appropriated 
to the payment of a partnership debt, due to a stranger, was held not to be 

Digitized by 



respoDgMe to the flrat attaehmg ciedilor^ finr not «eiziDg them on execution. 
CammereM Bamk y. WUkim^ a. 38. 

4. Where goods can be reclaimed by the seller, because the sale was 
^fected by the fiilse and fraudulent representations ci the purchaser, the same 
ri^ of reclamation exists, against an officer, attaching them, as the property 
of the fnuidulont purchaser. Hawe$ v. Dimgley^ xvu. Ml. 

5. An attachments of property, whether by trustee process, or otherwise, 
are diasolyed, by the dea^ of tiie debtor, and the issuing of a commission of 
inaoWeiiey upon his estate, and proof of tiie issuing of a commission of 
insolvency, is the only competent evidence, to dissolve an attachment Jlfor- 
trn T. Ahbot, I. 883. MmweU v. Pike, ii. 8. 


The return of an officer, that he made an attachment of real estate, at 
twelve o^clock at noon, on a certain day, is to be considered prior, in point of 
time, to the return of an attachment, as made on the same day, without speci- 
fying any definite time of the day. Fairfield v. Paine, xxiii. 498. 




(e) Powsas aud liabilities op a bailbb oa ascBirrsa. 

(d) In OBHBBAL. 

(a) hUeregt of the debtor. 

1. An attachment does not deprive the debtor of the rioht to convey the 
property, sutject to it ; and any merely formal act of delivery, which does 
not resist or deprive the officer of the actual control of it, is no violation of 
his lif^ts. NxchoU v. Paiten, xviii. 231. 

2w Nor would the ccmtinued operation of mechanics, upon the property 
attached, if not objected to by the officer, or his bailee, be considerea a tree- 
pan against him. But any act, which deprives the officer, cnr his keeper, of 
the control of the property, or the removal of any portion of it, from the 
place, where he chooses to have it deposited, would be a trespass. Nichols 
V. Pattern^ xvui. 231. 

3. If a horse be attached, and suffered to renuun in the possession of the 
debtor, on security given for the safe keeping or delivery thereof to the officer, 
and afterwards attached by another officer, on another writ, and removed, the 
owner cannot, either as bailee, or receiptor to the first attaching officer, main- 
tain an action against the second attaching officer, or his bailee. Brown v. 
Crockett, zzn. 537. 

(b) Rights and duties of the qficer. 

1. In this state, a deputy sheriff acquires a special property, to himself, in 
ibe goods attached, which the sheriff can neither divest nor ccmtrol. Walker 
T. Faxcroft, u. 270. 

2. If one deputy attach goods, and another deputy of the same sheriff at* 
tach and take the same goods out of his possession, by virtue of a precept 

Digitized by 



against the same debtor, the deputy, who made the first attachment, may 
maintain treapass, vi ei armiSy for the injury, againat the sheriff, or against the 
other depu^. Walter v. Foxcrofi^ ii. 270. Brown v. Crockett^ zzii. 587. 
Strout V. Bradburf^ v. 313. 

3« Where an officer attached a horse, and permitted it to remain in the 
hands of the debtor, taking a receipt from him and another person, promising 
to redeliver the hone, on demand, and the debtor absconded, and sold the 
horse to a bona JULe purchaser ; it was held, that the officer mi^t reclaim the 
horse, before judgment in the suit, in which it was attached. Ciurr v. Fat' 
/<y, xiL 32a 

4. A deputy sheriff, who has attached goods, has the custody of them, 
officially, till the suit is determined, whether he continue in office or not, aiid 
is officially bound to deliver them to any officer, who may seasonably demand 
them, on the execution ; and the sheriff is liable for his neglect to do so. 
Morton v. TTMte, xvi. 53. 

5. A demand of the property may be waived by the deputy, though out of 
office ; and proof of such waiver will be equivalent to proof of demand, in 
an action against the sheriff. Morton v. Wnite^ xvi. 53. 

6. The removal of a sheriff, from office, does not affect his right and duty 
to keep property, attached upon a writ, to await the judgment and execution, 
nor excuse his neglect to deliver it, to be taken on execution, upon demand 
made, within thirty days after final judgment T^tkey v. Smithy xnii. 125. 

7. The words *^ Mr. Officer, attach suff.^^ on the back of a writ, sufficiently 
indicate to the officer, the wish of the plaintiff, that an attachment should be 
made % and the officer would be responsible for omitting to attach, if in his 
power. Kimball v. Ba»%$^ xix. 310. 

8. If an attachment be made without written directions, the officer is 
bound to preserve, and account for the property attached. Kimball v. Boo is, 
XIX. 310. 

9. Verbal directions, as to what shall be attached, are binding on the offi* 
cer, when general directions, in writing, to attach, have been given. Kimball 
T. Bavis, XIX. 310. 

10. A demand, in whatever words made, which would inform the attaching 
officer, that the officer, having the execution, desired to obtain from him the 
property attached, would be sufficient And die return of the fact, upon the ex- 
cution, is prima facte evidence of such demand. Hapgood v. Hill, xx. 372. 

11. Where property attached, is proved not to have been the property of 
the debtor, at the time of the attachment, the officer is exonerated £rom his 
liability to deliver it on the execution. But the onus probandi is cm the offi- 
cer, in all cases. French v. Stanley, xxi. 512. Sawyer v. Mason, xix. 49. 

12. Where there is no other evidence of the value of the property attached, 
than is contained in the return of the officer upon the writ, that will be taken 
as the true value, in an action against the officer, for refusing to deliver it, to 
be taken on execution. French v. Stanley, xxi. 512. 

13. If the officer rest his defence upon the ground that the property at- 
tached did not belong to the debtor, but fails in his proof; and there is evi- 
dence, from which the jury may infer, that no property was in fact attached, 
as returned by the officer ; proof of the insolvency of the debtor cannot be 
admitted in mitigation of damages. French v. Stanley, xxi. 512. 

14. The return, by an officer, of an attachment of personal property, as 
made by him, ^^ at the risk of the plaintiff,'* does not affect the rights of the 
creditor, or the officer's responsibility. Lovejoy v. Hutchins, xxiiu 272. 

Digitized by 



15. Where personal property, under attachment, is removed, without the 
consent of the officer, out of his precinct, he may pursue it, and vindicate 
his special property in it ; and is not exonerated from his Uahility to the 
creditor. Lovejoy v. Hutchins^ xxiii. 272. 

16. In a suit, against an officer, for not keeping property attached, he is not 
eotitled to a deduction from its value, on account of what might have been 
the expense of keeping, if kept safely. Lovejoy v. Hutchins^ xxiii. 272. 

17. A creditor has no right to control a receipt taken by an officer, for 
property attached, it being for the private security of the officer ; but, if the 
officer deliver it to the creditor, this will be a sufficient assignment Clark v. 
Claugk, lu. 357. 

18. The lien, created by attachment of horses, neat cattle, hay, &c. is not 
dissolved, by taking the security mentioned in the statute ; and a subsequent 
sale thereof, by the debtor, to a boTia fide purchaser, gives the vendee no 
rights against the attachment Woodman v. Trqflon^ vik 178. 

19. Where property, attached, is bulky, and is deposited, by the attaching 
oflKser, in a suitable place, for safe keeping, and the attaching officer, when 
a demand is seasonably made upon him, is ready, and offers, to deliver the 
property, at the place of deposit, but is prevented by the neglect of the 
officer, having the execution, to go with him and receive it, he is discharged. 
It is o^erwise, if the proper^ be at an inconvenient and unreasonable place 
of deposit Gordon v. Wilkins^ xx. 134. 

20. A demand, by the officer having the execution, upon the officer, who 
made the attachment, upon the last of the thirty days, will be presumed to 
have been in sufficient season, on that day, to enable the attaching officer to 
discharge himself. Gordon v. WiUdns^ xx. 134. 

21. If the execution be placed in the hands of the deputy, who made the 
attachment, within thirty days af\er judgment, this will be notice to him, that 
the creditor requires him to apply the goods attached, in satisfaction of the 
execution ; and the effect is the same, if placed m the hands of the sheriff; 
the sheriff and the deputy being one in law. And notice by the sheriff, to 
the deputy, that he hais the execution, and that the creditor claims satisfac- 
tion out of the property, is a sufficient demand. Humphreys v. Cohb^ xxii. 

22. If the attaching officer send the receipt to the attorney of the creditor, 
and the attorney, without any agreement, that it shall be received as a substi- 
tute for the creditor's claim upon the officer, endeavors to obtam the property 
from the receipter, the officer is not thereby discharged. Humphreys v. Cobb^ 
ini. 380. 

23. If an officer, having a writ in his hands, informs the debtor, that he is 
directed to attach certain goods, then in his possession, and shall do so, but 
does not in fact interfere with the goods, or take them into his custody ; and 
the debtor informs the officer, that the goods belong to another person, and 
not to him, but procures a receipter, other than the owner, therefor, to the 
officer, this will not be such a conversion, as will render the officer liable to 
the owner, in an action of trover. Rand v. Sargent^ xxiii. 326. And see 
Small V. Hutchins^ xix. 255. 

24. If an officer attach property, not liable to attachment, or seize it on 
execution, he is a trespasser. Foss v. Stewart ^ xiv. 312. 

25. If an attorney delivers a writ, with written orders thereon, to attach 
property, to an officer, and, at the same time, gives him verbal directions, as 
to what property he shall take, and take therefor the receipt of a pci-son 


Digitized by 



ATTACnilKllT. V. 

named, and the officer act in accordance to such directions, he cannot be 
holden to produce the property attached, to be taken on execution ; though, 
by the terms of the receipt, the receiptor is required to deliver the property 
attached, ^^ on demand afler judgment/' Rice v. WUkins^ xn. 558. 

26. Where an officer attaches personal property, he should make a true^ 
strict, minute, and particular, return of his doings. Haynet v. SmaJl^ xxii. 14. 

27. If an officer return on a writ, that he has attached 175 yards of broad- 
cloth, he will not be allowed, in an action against him, for not producing the 
property, to show, that, in fact, but 30 yards had been attached by him. 
Haynes v. Small^ xxii. 14. 

28. An officer, serving a writ, when so ordered, in writing, is bound to 
attach sufficient to secure payment of what may finally be recovered, if suffi* 
cient property, belonging to the debtor, can be foimd. Bradford v. Afc- 
LellaHj XXIII. 802. 

29. Personal property, found in the possession of the debtor, having the 
external indicia of ownership, may be presumed to be his, if nothing ap* 
pears to the contrary ; and, if the officer neglect to attach it, the burthen of 
proof is on him, and he will not be excused, except upon such proof, or, in 
case of reasonable grounds of suspicion, by a refusal of the creditor to furnish 
him an indemnity. Bradford v. McLelUm^ xxiii. 302. 

30. Where an officer, in defence of an action of replevin, sets up an 
attachment of the property replevied, it will be presumed, in the absence of 
opposing proof, that he took possession of the property. Smith v. Smithy 
XXIV. 555. 

31. Where an officer attaches property, which is lost through his negli* 
gence, the general rule is, that he is liable, to the attaching creditor, for the 
fair value of the property, at the time it would have been taken on executioii, 
had the attachment been preserved. Franklin Bank v. SmaU^ xxr7. 52. 

32. But, where the officer, immediately upon the attachment, converts the 
property to his own use ; or, where he should realize a greater value, by a 
sale thereof; or should obtain it of a receipter, or from one, who had taken 
it from him ; these would be exceptions to the rule. Franklin Bank v. 
Small^ xxiv. 52. 

See Officer, I. (c) 3, 7, 8. 

(c) Powers and lioMlities oj a bailee or receipter. 

1. Where property was attached, and delivered to a third person for safe 
keeping, to be restored, on demand ; in an action against the bailee, upon his 
promise to redeliver the goods, he may show, that they were not the property 
of the debtor, and have been restored to the true owner, or that they belong- 
ed to himself. In such case, it may be questioned, whether there was any 
consideration for the promise of the bailee. Fisher v. Bartlett^ viii. 122. 
Sawyer v. Mason^ xix. 49. Lathrop v. Cook^ xiv. 414. 

2. A deputy sheriff, having attached property, and placed it in the hands of 
a bailee, to be redelivered, within thirty days after judgment, and having, be- 
fore rendition of judgment, ceased to be an officer, by the appointment of a 
new sheriff, into whose hands the execution was afterwards placed, and the 
property demanded from him within thirty days, was held entitled to main- 
tain an action against the bailee, for the property ; and the new sheriff was 
a competent witness in the action. Bradbury v. Taylor, viii. 130. 

3. The liability of a receipter is limited by that of the officer. Sawyer t* 
Mason, xix. 49. 

Digitized by 


ATrJMMMmXFty T. 08 

4. The sum, at which property is valued, in the receipt, is, prima faeie^ 
the measure of damage ; but an over valuation may be proved, in reduction 
of damages. Sawyer v. Mason^ xix. 49. 

5. Where, by the terms of a receipt, a demand on one of the receipters, 
is to have the same effect, as if made upon sdl, it is questionable, whether an 
admission, by one, on the back of the receipt, of a ^^ due and legal demand,^^ 
is conclusive upon the other receipters, that the lien continued, or that it was 
made within thirty days. Fowles v. Pindar, zix. 420. 

6. Where a receipt was given to an attaching officer, obliging the receipters 
to pay a sum of money, or to keep the property safely, and redeliver it, on 
dema^ ; and, if no demand be made, to redeliver it, within thurty days from 
rendition of judgment in the suit, at a place named, and notify the officer of 
die delivery, it was held, that this was a valid contract ; and, that it was not 
necessary for the officer to prove a demand of the property, nor notice to the 
receiptors, of the time when judgment was rendereo, to maintain an action on 
the contract, after the expiration of the thirty days. Shaw v. Laughton^ xx. 
266. Humphreys v. Cobb, xxii. 380. 

7. But the receipters were held not liable, for the value of a horse, part of 
the property, which died before the time limited for the delivery, without their 
fiiult Shaw v. Laughtonj xx. 266. 

8. Where goods are deposited by an officer in the hands of a receipter, 
for safe keeping, the latter is but the servant of the officer, and cannot main* 
tain replevin against any one, who shall take them from him. Eastman v« 
Avery, xxiii. 248. 

9. Where an attaching officer takes a receipt for the goods attached, and 
afterwards, before rendition of judgment, demands them from the receipter, 
and, on his refusal, brings an action against him ; and, during the pendency 
of such action, judgment is rendered in the original suit, but no demand is 
made upon the officer, within the thirty days ; the officer being no longer lia- 
ble, can recover only nominal damages against the receipter. Norris v. 
Bridgham, xiv. 429. 

10. Where an attorney directs an officer to attach property, and to take the 
receipt of a certain individual therefor, the officer, in doing so, is dischareed 
firom liability, and the creditor acquires an equitable interest in the receipt, 
which will be protected by the court ; and the creditor may sustain an action 
thereon, in the name of Ae officer. Famham v. Gilman, xxiv. 250. 

11. Where one of two receipters is discharged, under the bankrupt law of 
&e United States, this does not affect the liability of the other. Famham v. 
Giiman, xxiv. 250. 

12. If a receipter has become the bona fide purchaser of the goods attach- 
ed, subject to the attachment, and has taken possession thereof, he does not 
forfeit his rights, by suffering the officer to take possession of them, without 
resistance, on another writ against the same debtor, after the purchase, nor b} 
taking the receipt, when handed to him by the officer, and immediately oflen 
ing to restore it Weston v. Dorr, xxv. 176. 

13. It is no objection to the validity of a demand, by an officer upon the 
receipter, for the goods, that the execution, then in the hands of the officer, 
was, by mistake of the clerk, for too large a sum, which the clerk afterwards 
corrected. Famham, v. Crilman, xxiv. 250. 

See Assumpsit, I. 20. 
Assignment, 1, 3. 
Pleading, II. (b) 8. 

Digitized by 



(d) In general. 

1. The expense of the safe custody of goods, attached on mesne process, 
is a lien on the goods ; and is not afTccted by an allowance of a sum, for that 
purpose, by the court, in the taxation of costs for the plaintiff. Twombly v. 
Hunnewell^ ii. 221. 

2. Where an officer is charged, by the original debtor, with haying wasted 
a part of the goods attached, he may exonerate himself from liability, by 
showing, that he has applied the amount, for the use of the plaintifi*, to 
pa3rment of the expenses of keeping the goods. Ticomblp v. Hunnewell^ ii. 

3. The lien, created by an attachment of an equity of redemption, is not 
always limited to the amount of the judgment, to be recovered ; but may ex- 
tend to the whole amount, for which it may be sold by the sheriff. Gilbert v. 
Merrill, viii. 295. 

4. So, where a right in equity, under attachment, was sold by the mortga- 
ger to a stranger, and aflerwards was duly sold by the sheriff, on execution, 
for a sum, much larger than the amoimt of the execution ; it was held, that 
the assignee of the mortgager must tender the whole sum paid by the purchas- 
er, at the sheriff's sale, in order to redeem. Gilbert v. Merrill, viii. 295. 

5. Where property, exempt from attachment, is attached, as the property 
of A., and replevied by B., as his property, and the officer defends the replev- 
in suit successfully, by proving the property to be in A., and thereupon re- 
ceives the value of it from B., instead of the property replevied ; such officer 
cannot, in an action against him, by A., deny his title thereto. Foss v. Steuh- 
art, XIV. 312. 

6. An owner of goods, attached by an officer, as the property of another, 
retains them in possession, by giving to the officer a receipt, promising to de- 
liver the goods to him, on demand, but containing no admission, that they 
were not his own property. It was held, that proo^ that the goods were his 
property, is a valid defence to an action against him on the receipt Lath- 
rop v. Cook, XIV. 414. 

7. But, whilst the owner retains possession, under such circumstances, he 
cannot maintain replevin against the officer, who had not taken them into his 
actual possession. Lathrop v. Cook, xiv. 414. 

8. A writ, unlawfully sued out, by the defendant, in the name of another, 
and irregularly served, by hb procurement, can afford him no protection, in 
taking property of another, under color thereof. Baldwin v. Wkittier, xvi. 

9. The return of an officer, that he had attached certain articles of per- 
sonal property, is sufficient evidence, in the absence of all opposing testimony, 
of a valid attachment, until rendition of judgment in the suit, and thirty days 
thereafter, Lothrop v. Abbott, xvi. 421.' 

10. Where an officer returns, on a writ, an attachment of certain goods^ 
without fixbg the value, the presumption of law, in the absence of other 
testimony, is, that they were of the value commanded to be attached. Childs 
V. Ham, xzni. 74. 

11. Where an attachment of additional personal property was made upon 
a writ, by the direction of persons, liable upon the note in suit, but not parties 
to the action, and the officer declined to make return of the attachment, unless 
the property was receipted for, by a receipter approved by them, and they 
procured such receipter, and the return of the attachment was made, and af- 
terwards, the plaintiff, finding the return of the attachment upon the writ, but 

Digitized by 



having no knowledge of the circumstances, under which it was made, claimed 
the benefit of it, the officer was held responsible for the safe keeping of the 
property, that it might be taken, to satisfy the execution. Franklin Bank v. 
SmaU, xxYi. 136. 




L The authority of an attorney, who has obtained a judmient, continues 
in force, until the judgment is satisfied. And, if the execution, issued upon 
such judgment, be extended upon land, a payment of the money for redemp- 
tion, to the attorney, within a year, b a good bar to a writ of entry, by the 
creditor, against the debtor, for the land. Gray v. Wass^ i. 257. 

2. The employment of an attorney, to commence an action, does not, of 
itself, give him authority to indorse the writ, with the name of the plAintifi*. 
Harmon v. Watson^ viu. 286. 

3. A party is responsible for the acts of the attorney of record, regularly 
employed by him, m the case. Fling v. Trafton^ xiii. 295. 

4. A counselor, or attorney, regularly admitted to practice, is not bound to 
produce any special power of attorney, to act for individuals, or corporations, 
in court ; bis statement that he does represent a person, or body corporate, is 
sufficient Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lamson^ xyi. 224. Upham v. Bradley^ 
XVII. 423. 

5. In a suit a^unst the maker of a note, the attorney of record has no 
authority, from his employment, as such, to execute a vaHd release to an in- 
dorser of the same note, to render him a competent witness. York Bank v. 
Appleton, XVII. 55. 

6. Nor has an attorney, acting in a suit, power, as such, to release the lia- 
bility of a witness, to pay a part of the costs of such suit Springer v. 
Whipple, XVII. 351. 

7. A general authority, to commence suits, will warrant an attorney in 
commencing a suit, and attaching property, and will render the client respon- 
sible for any damages, occasioned thereby. Fairbanks v. Stanley, xviii. 

8. The attorney of the plaintiff, without any special authority therefor, may 
approve the receipt, taken by the officer, for personal property attached, and 
thereby relieve him from the obligation to retain and produce the property, 
to be taken in execution. Jenney v. Delesdemier, xx. 183. Rice v. WU" 
kins, XXI. 558. Famham v. Oilman, xxiv. 250. 

9. He may elect and control the remedy, but he cannot release the cause 
of action, without receiving payment. And, though he may ccmduct so indis- 
creetly, negligently orignorantly, as to be answerable to his client, in damages, 
this wiU not prejudice &e officer, who is entided to regard him, in all respects, 
as the authorized agent of his client. Jenney v. Delesdemier, xx. 183. 

Digitized by 


86 ATTOBmrar akd couksbloSi u ii. 

10. If a creditor ghre ordeis to his attomej, ^^ to obtain immediate security*^ 
for a demand, the whole manner of doing it is at the discretion of the attorney, 
and the creditor is bound by his acts. Rice v. WUkinSy xix. 558. 

11. Though the statement of an attorney, that he has been retained by a 
corporation, is sujficient evidence of the fact ; this will not authorize a person 
to institute and maintain a suit, in the name of the corporation, without being 
duly authorized to do so. Bridgton v. Bennett^ xziii. 4SiO. 

12. If an attorney is employed by the principal, to defend an action against 
himself and two sureties, upon a note, signed by them, the sureties are not 
thereby holden for the payment of his services, unless ^y have, dir^tW or 
indirectly, consented to his employment, as their attorney. Smith v. Lyfordy 
XXIV. 147. We$Um v. Dovw, xxrv. 874. 

See AoBNCT, IL 13, 14, 15. m. 1. 


1. An attorney having collected money, for a treasurer of a town, in that 
capacity, is liable therefor to the town, and, in an action, by the town, against 
him, for such money, he cannot set off any demand, which he has against 
the treasurer, in his private capacity. Newcastle v. Bellard^ iii. 369. 

2. An attorney, who has collected money for his client, is liable to have it 
attached in his hands, as the property of his client, by trustee process ; though 
it was received in bank bills, and had not been demanded ; and, diougfa he 
might not have been liable to an action therefor, l^ his client, till after a de- 
mand. Staples V. Stt^es^ iv. 532. 

3. Assumpsit lies a^^ainst an attorney, for i^^igence, in transacting the 
business of his profession ; and the cause of action survives against his ad- 
ministrator. Stimpson v. S^agne^ vi. 470. 

4. An attorney at law is liable to an action, for money, collected by him, in 
the same manner, as any other agent, without a special demand. Cqfin v. 
Cqfin, VII. 298. 

5. If an attorney, in the settlement of a demand, charge the debtor two 
and a half per cent, on the money paid by him, this, being voluntarily paid, 
and without fraud or oppression, cannot be recovered back. Rawson v. foT" 
tct, IX. 119. 

6. Where a note is left by an indorsee with an attorney, for coUection, 
before it falls due, without any instructions, to present it for payment to the 
maker, living thir^ miles distant, or to notify the indorser, living seventy- 
five miles distant, and without giving notice to the attorney, as to the ability 
of either party to pay, of which the attorney was ignorant, and without ad- 
vancing any money to the attorney, and there was no proof of a special 
undertaking by die attorney, or particular custom of the place ; the attorney 
is not bound to demand payment of the maker, and notify the indorser, and 
so not liable to the indorsee, for omitting to do it Odlin v. Stetson^ xvii. 

7. An attorney is bound to disclose, by whom he was employed, in the 
management of a cause, and, that he was instructed by one person, to follow 
the directions of another, although the knowledge was acquired by confiden- 
tial consultatioiis, as counsel and client Grower v. Emery y xviii. 79. 

8. An attorney is bound by law, to pay to the creditor, the amount which 

Digitized by 



he has collected on a demand left with him for collection, without any special 
instructions, by such creditor, in legal currency, if required, and a demand 
of money dius collected, to be paid in specie^ is sufficient Lord v. Burbanky 
xviii. 178. 

9. In a suit against an attorney for negligence, it is sufRcient proof of his 
employment, that he acted as such, and was so recognized on the records. 
Sttudlwood v. Norton^ xz. 88. 

10. An attorney, charged with the collection of a demand, having procur- 
ed an attachment of the debtor's property, which was replevied from the 
officer, is bound to make defence to the replevin suit, and is responsible, if 
he is guilty of negligence therein ; and does not relieve himself from respon- 
sibility, by the employment of other counsel. Smallwood v. Norton^ %x. 

11. If the plaintifr in replevin becomes nonsuit, it is the duty of the coun- 
sel for the defendant, to move for judgment, for a return of the property re- 
plevied, and that the writ be placed on file, that the record may be properly 
made up, and, in a suit against him, for i^glect so to do, it is not compe- 
tent for him to show, in r^uction of damages, that the plaintiff in replevin 
was the real owner of the property replevied. Smallwood v. Norton^ xx. 88. 

12. An attorney is not liable to his client, for money collected by an officer 
for him, until the officer has actually paid it over to the attorney. WiUon 
V. Russ, XX. 421. 

13. If an attorney commence a suit against his client, on a note, payable 
to himself, and it be shown, that the attorney received a sum of money for 
the client, it cannot be allowed in set-off, unless it be so filed, or, unless it be 
proved that the money was received in payment of the note. WiUon y. 
Russ^ XX. 421. 

14. An attorney is bound to execute professional business, intrusted to 
him, with reasonable care, skill, and dispatch. If the client be injured by 
his gross fault, negligence, or ignorance, the attorney is liable. But, if he 
act in good faith, to the best of his skill, and with an ordinary degree of at- 
tention, he is not responsible for the loss of demands, left with him for collec- 
tion. Wilson V. Rusi^ xx. 421. 

15. If an attorney has been grossly negligent, in the management of a de- 
mand, intrusted to him for collection, and has promised to pay the amount 
to the creditor, an action may be maintained against him, without first making 
a demand of the money. Dorrance v. Hutchinson^ xxii. 357. 

See Evidence, Vm. 1, 5, 9. 


1. An attorney's lien on a cause, for his fees, does not exist, till judgment 
is entered. Potter v. Mayo, iii. 34. 

2. In a case reserved, afler the opinion of the court was pronounced, in 
favor of the plaintiff, he forthwith assigned his interest in the judgment, and 
the defendant, during the term, and l^fore judgment was actually entered, 
paid the whole amount to the assignee ; the attorney's lien was thereby de- 
feated. Potter V. Mayo^ iii. 34. 

3. Where a debtor was arrested on execution, and gave bond, the attorney 
in the original suit, having a lien for his costs, which were included in the 
amount, for which the bond was given, may receive payment of the debtor, 

Digitized by 



after giving of die bond, and give a valid discharge for the amount Grimes 
V. J\imer^ xvi. 353. 

4. The lien, which an attorney has, upon a judgment, for his costs, in con« 
ducting a suit, is not discharged, by a delay of several years, in collecting 
the demand, if there be no negligence on die part of the attorney, and the 
debtor has notice of his claim, ^ont v. Hyde^ xxii. 318. 

5. Although a judgment, on which the attorney in that suit has a lien, f<sr 
his costs, has been d^hai^d by the creditcnr, the attorney may enforce his 
claim, by an action on the judgment, in the name of the creditor. Stone v. 
Hyde, xxii. 318. 

6. In case of setting off judgments by the court, the lien of an attorney is 
protected. And the court, in the exercise of its discretion, may require 
an exhibit, on the part of the attorney, showing the extent of his equitable 
lien, aud will protect him to that extent But this cannot, in any event, ex- 
lend further, than to fees legally accruing, and advances made, by way of 
disbursements, for the accruing costs. Hooper v. Brundage, xxii. 460. 

7. Where one, having left a demand with an attorney for collection, drew 
an order on him, to pay the amount to his own order, which the attorney ac- 
cepted, payable, when the amount should be collected and come into his 
hands ; and the drawer then indorsed, and assigned the order to a third per- 
son, who gave notice thereof to the attorney, and the attorney afterwards 
collected and received the amount ; the assignee may maintain an action in 
his own name, against the attorney, to recover the money, so collected ; and 
the latter will not be allowed to set off his own demand against the original 
creditor, existing at the time of the acceptance of the order. McLeUan v. 
WdUcer, xxvi. 114. 


1. After a sale of lands, at auction, by license of court, it is the duty of 
the seller to make and tender a deed, within a reasonable time. Two days 
after the sale is a reasonable time for the purpose. And the purchaser is 
justified in delaying to complete the contract, till he has had reasonable time 
to take legal advice, respecting the formality and validity of the deed tender- 
ed. Cleaves v. Foss, iv. 1. 

2. In a sale of lands, the auctioneer is the agent of both parties ; and his 
entry of the name of the purchaser, on his book or memorandum, containing 
the particulais of the contract, is a sufficient signing, within the statute of 
frauds. Cleaves v. FosSj iv. 1. Alna v. Plummer, iv. 258. 

3. So, a memorandum of the sale, entered by his clerk, if made in the 
presence of the parties, and of the auctioneer, is sufficient ; and it is not 
necessary, that the authority of the auctioneer should be in writing. Alna 
V. Plttmmer, iv. 258. 

4. Where real estate is sold by auction, and a memorandum of the sale 
made by the auctioneer, and a deed tendered to the purchaser, which he re- 
fuses, the measure of damages is, the price, at which the land was struck 
off, with interest, though the title remains as before ; the purchaser having 
his remedy upon the same contract, should the seller refuse to give a deed, 
upon a new demand. Alna v. Plummer, iv. 258. 

5. A license to sell, by auction, under stat 1821, c. 134, § 1, is of no 

Digitized by 



force, beyond the limitB of the town, to which the selectmen and auctioneer 
belonged, when it was granted. Waterhouse v. Dorr., iv. 333. 

6. All fraudulent acts, and all combinations, having for their object, to 
stifle (air competition at the biddings, at auction sales, are unlawful. Gardi- 
ner v. Money xrv, 140. 

7. Where the parties agreed, that, if the defendant would not bid upon a 
note, against the plaintiff, at an auction sale of the eflTects of a bankrupt, 
Ae plaintiff would discharge a demand, which he held against the defendant, 
such agreement was unlaMHful and void. Gardiner v. Morie^ xxv. 140. 


Audita querela is in the nature of a bill in equity, to obtain relief 
against oppression. Injury, or danger of injury, is essential to its mainten* 
ance. It lies, where, after judgment, the debt has been paid or released, and 
yet the debtor is arrested, or in danger of being arrested, on an execution, 
issued on such judgment ; and where the debtor had no opportunity to avail 
himself of such payment, or release in defence ; and, in other cases, where a 
defendant had good matter to offer in defence, but had no opportunity to offer 
it, before judgment against him. If a levy on land be nugatory and void, the 
action of audita querela cannot be maintained against him. Bryant v. John- 
son, XXIV. 304. 


1. Where the principal in a bail bond, aAer it was signed by the surety, 
and in his absence, but, before delivery, erased the name of the sheriff, as 
obliged, and inserted that of the constable, who served the precept, in the 
presence, and at the suggestion of the constable, it was held, that this did not 
avoid the bond, as to the surety. Hale v. jRum, i. 334. 

2. The consent of the surety, in such case, was presumed, his intention of 
becoming bail not being affected, and the alteration being only in matter of 
form. Hale v. Russ, i. 334. 

3. A €urrender of the principal debtor, to the officer having the execution 
against him, is a discharge of the bail bond, though the officer does not take 
him into custody. Ryan v. Watson^ ii. 382. 

4. The Stat. 1821, c. 67, § 1, requiring the insertion of the names of the 
bail, in the margin of the execution, applies to bail taken by the jailer, after 
commitment on mesne process, as well as to bail, taken by the officer, who 
served the writ Holmes v. ChadhoumCy iv. 10. 

5. AVhen a debtor, committed on mesne process, is enlarged on bond, be- 
fore the return day, the condition should be for his appearance at court, and 
not for his remaining within the debtor's limits. Holmes v. Chadboume^ 
IV. 10. 

6. The Stat. 1821, c. 67, § 1, requiring the sheriff to notify the bail, fifteen 
days before the return day of the execution, does not excuse the sheriff, from 
making diligent search for the body and property of the debtor, as before. 
Kidder v. Parlin, vii. 80. 


Digitized by 



7. Where one became bail, at the request of a third penon, who after- 
wards paid him the principal part of the judgment, which the bail had been 
compelled to satisfy ; this was held to be no defence, for the sheriff, in an 
action against him, by the bail, for a false return on the execution* Kidder 
V. Parliny vii. 80. 

8. If the defendant, in an action of $c%re facias^ against him, as bail, be- 
fore a justice of the peace, procure a constable, to attend the court, to receive 
the principal on being surrendered by the bail, and the service is performed 
by the constable, he may recover of the bail, his fees, for taking and com- 
mitting the principal. Thomp9on v. Wiley ^ xx. 479. 

9. And the officer will not be deprived of his right to recover the fees, if 
he kept the principal two days, before conunitting him to jail. Tkompion y. 
PTt&y, XX. 479. 

See Bond, II. 27. 

Damages, I. (a) 1. 

Justice of the Peace and Quorum, 1. 
Officer, II. (b) 1. 
Poor Debtors, I. 2. 
A$ to hail in criminal cases^ See Recognizance, I. 


1. Where the personal estate of a testator was suffered to remain in the 
hands of the residuary legatee, with an understanding, that he would pay the 
legacies to his sisters, which would not become due till several years after- 
wards, but which he neglected to pay ; it was held, that the residuary legatee 
was only bailee of the executor, and was answerable to him in trover, for the 
goods, if they should be wanted, to pay the legacies. Carlisle v. BurUy^ 
III. 250. 

2. Where the owner of a tract of land, made a written contract with A. 
and B., by which they were to cut all the pine timber of a certain description 
thereon, and to transport the logs to a certain place, to be sawed bto boards, 
and the owner to have one fourth part for his share, and to retain the title to 
the other three fourths, till he should be paid the full amount of his fourth 
part, whether cut within the time specified, or not, and for all sums, which 
they might owe him ; and the timber was not cut within the time specified, 
and was sold by A. and B., to a third person, before it reached the place of 
destination, from whom the owner immediately replevied it, A. and B. being 
largely in his debt ; it was held, that the contractors, A. and B., had no au- 
thority to sell the logs ; being only bailees, for a special purpose ; and that, 
immediately upon the sale to third persons, their right as bailees terminated, 
and the owner might replevy the logs. Emerson v. Fisk^ vi. 200. 

3. A bailee of goods, without reward, to be carried from place to place, is 
responsible only for gross negligence ; that is, a want of that care, which men 
of common sense, however inattentive, usually take, of their property ; and 
this is a question of fact, for the decision of the jury. Storer v. Goven^ 
XVIII. 174. 

4. A creditor, receiving a dmfl for collection, and negotiating the same, 
and passing the proceeds thereof to the credit of his debtor, is not conclud- 
ed thereby, unless chargeable with negligence, or want of fidelity, in endeav- 
oring to collect it. Goodnow v. Howe^ xx. 164. 

Digitized by 



5. H. delivered to A. six cows, which, by agreement, were to be returned 
at the end of two years, or their value in money, unless A. should be dissatis* 
fied with a certain trade or exchange of farms, then made between them ; in 
which case they were to remain the property of A. forever ; it was held, that 
this was not technically a bailment, but anK>unted to a sale. HoJhrook v. 
Armstrongs x. 31. 

6. An agent, having discretionary power, to adjust and collect an unliqui- 
dated demand, and who settles it by taking a negotiable note, payable to his 
principal, has no authority to pledge such note, as collateral security, for his 
own debt. The pledgee, in such ease, is liable to the payee, in trover, aAer 
demand and refusal. Jone* v. Farley^ vi. 226. 

7. A pledge of personal property to a receipter, to indemnify him against 
his liability for other property of the pledger, which had been attached, and 
receipted for, by the pledgee, is for a go^ and valuable consideration, and 
valid. Thow^on v. Stevens^ x. 27. 

8. A delivery of perscHial property, for security, is not a mortgage, but 
merely a pledge ; and, if the pledgee voluntarily relinquishes the possession 
thereof to the pledger, and does not regain it, his right, as against third per- 
sons, ceases. EastmoM v. Avery^ xxiii. 248. 

9. Cattle, leased for a term of years, to be taken back by the owner, within 
Ae term, if he should think them unsafe in the hands of tl:^ lessee, cannot bo 
reclaimed, without notice ; and, if seized on an execution against the lessee, 
the lessor cannot maintain replevin for them, not having the right of immedi- 
ate possession. Wyman v. Dorr^ in. 183. 

10. Where A. agreed to take logs of B., at a certain place, at an agreed 
survey, to saw them into boards, and transport and deliver ihe boards to B., 
and B. agreed to sell the boards, free of charge for commissions, and allow A. 
all they should sell for, beyond a certain price per thousand ; the property to 
be, all the time, at the risk of A. ; it was held, that this was not a sale of the 
1<^ to A., but merely a locatio operis faciendi. Barker v. Roberts ^ viii. 

1 1. Where the owner of a line of stages posted notices, that he would not 
be accountable for baggage, unless the fare was paid, and the same was en- 
tered in the way bill ; it was held, that he was liable for the loss of a trunk, 
through negligence, though the fare was not paid ; a knowledge of such notice 
not having been brought home to the owner of the trunk, or his servant, who 
carried it to the stage office ; and though it was known to the postmaster, to 
whom the trunk was delivered, to be given to the stage driver. Bean v. 
Green^ xii. 422. 

12. One tenant in common, of a personal chattel, may maintain an action 
against his co-tenant, by whom such chattel was received as a common carrier, 
and by whose negligence it was destroyed. Herrin v. Eaton, xiii. 193. 

13. Where a common carrier by sea, engages to deliver goods at a place 
named, for a stipulated sum, as freight, and the owner of the goods is willing 
to receive them, before they arrive at the place appointed in the bill of lading, 
and does receive a part of them, the carrier is entitled to a pro rata freight 
Hunt V. HaskeU, xxiv. 339. 

14. A common carrier by sea has a lien on the goods, for the payment of 
their freight ; but he has no right to cause a sale thereof, of his own mere 
motion, for the payment of the freight. Hunt v. Haskell^ xxiv. 339. 

15. If one man let to another, personal chattels, for an indefinite time, and 
the latter, for the purpose of using them to better advantage, put them with 

Digitized by 



chattels of his own, and, while thusr in possession, the whole are attached as 
his property and sold, the owner of the chattels thus let may maintain trespass 
against the attaching officer. Sibley v. Broum^ xv. 185. 

16. The general owner of property, in the hands of a bailee, may maintain 
replevin against an officer, who, having attached the same, as the property of 
the bailee, puts it into the hands of a receiptor, by whom it is suffered to go 
back into the hands of the bailee ; the attachment not being thereby dissolved. 
Small V. HutchinSy xix. 255. 

17. Unless a carrier by water limits his responsibility, by the terms of a 
bill of lading, or otherwise, he ig bound to deliver a shipment, according to its 
destination, unless prevented by the public enemy, or by act of God. A loss 
of the property, by an accidental fire, is no sufficient excuse ; but he might 
be excused, if prevented by lightning. Parker v. Flaggy xxvi. 181. 

18. A bill of lading of lumber, shipped under what is called a clean bill of 
lading, binds the carrier, to carry it under deck, unless there was an agree- 
ment, express or implied, to the contrary. But where the well known usage 
is, to carry such lumber above or below deck, as convenience may require, 
and, where the shipper saw it laden upon deck, without objection, the bill of 
lading may import, only, that it be carried in the usual manner. Sprout ▼. 
Donnelly xxvi. 185. 

See Assumpsit, V. (a) 11, 12. 
Notice and Demand, I. 1, 2. 
Trover, III. 1, 2. 
Witness, I. (b) 1, 5. 


1. By the act, incorporating the city of Bangor, authority was conferred, 
" to ordain and establish such acts, laws and regulations, not inconsistent with 
the constitution and laws of this state, as shall be needful to the good order of 
said body politic." Held, that an ordinance of the city government, prohib- 
iting the erection of wooden buildings, within certain limits, in the city, was 
within the authority confen-ed. Wadleigh v. Giltnan, xii. 403. 

2. Held, also, that a removal of a wooden building to the inhibited dis- 
trict, or from one part of the district to another, was within the meaning of 
the term, erection^ used in the ordinance. Wadleigh v. Gilman, xii. 403. 


1. If the charter of a banking company be expired, it may be revived, in 
all its original force, by a subsequent statute ; and this does not create a new 
corporation, but revives the old one. Lincoln 4" Kennebec Bank v. Richard- 
son^ I. 79. 

2. If the owner of bills would hold a bank to the payment of the penal 
damages given by statute, for not redeeming its bills, he must distinctly 
claim the damages ui his declaration. Pahner v. York Bank, xviii. 166. 

3. The Stat. 1838, c. 326, § 3, additional to the act, regulating banks and 
banking, is prospective in its operation, and is to be applied only to bills, the 

Digitized by 


BANK. 93 

payment of which might be suboequently demanded. Bryant v. Danuaris- 
coUa Bankj jlviii. 240. 

4. A bank bill, like any other note of hand, payable on demand, but hav- 
ing no place of payment appointed therein, may be sued, and the action may 
be sustained, without proof of any special demand. Bryant v. Danutriscotta 
Bank, xviii. 240. 

5. The true construction of stat. 1831, c. 119, § 11, is, that if the officers 
of a bank refuse or delay payment, in gold or silver money, of any bill, pre- 
sented for payment, at the bank, in the usual banking hours, the corporation 
is made liable, afWr fifteen days from such demand, to pay the additional 
damages of 24 per cent, per annum. Bryant v. Damariscotta Bank, xviii. 

6. If the demand upon the bank be proved to have been for specie, for the 
bills presented, it may be understood to have been, for such coin, as consti- 
tutes legal- tender ; and, a demand of payment merely is sufiicient, and may 
be made by an agent, the agency being avowed, and the principal disclosed. 
Bryant v. DamarUcotta Bank, xviii. 240. 

7. The cashier is the regularly authorized agent of a bank, and, whatever 
is done by him, in that c apa city, within the sphere of his duties, is the act of 
the bank. Bumham v. Webster, xix. 232. Medomak Bank v. Curtis, xxiv. 
36. Warren v. Oilman, xvii. 360. Farrar v. Oilman, xix. 440. Badger 
v. Bank of Cumberland, xxvi. 428. 

8. Where a note is left with a bank, for collection, although the bank has 
no interest in it, yet, for certain purposes, they are to be considered the real 
holders. Bumham v. Webster, xix. 232. 

9. If the state treasurer, by mistake, take from a bank a sum, less than 
^ amount of the tax, and give a receipt, ** in full for the semi-annual tax on 
the capital stock of said bank, which became due" on a certain day, thd 
state is not barred thereby, from recovering the just amount. State v. Waldo 
Bank, xx. 470. 

10. The bank tax attaches at the commencement of the year ; and, if the 
bank surrenders its charter, and it is cwceptcd by the legislature, before the 
close of the year, with a continuance of its corporate powers, for the sole 
purpose of closing its concerns, it is liable to pay the tax, though there may 
have been a partial dividend of the capital stock. State v. Waldo Bank, xx. 

11. Banks, incorporated in this state, may receive real estate, as security 
for a loan, or in payment for debts. And, if land be conveyed to a bank, 
as collateiul security, and the title becomes absolute in the bank, through 
failure of payment by the grantor, and afterwards, by request of the grantor, 
the bank conveys the land to a third person, on payment, by the latter, of the 
amount due ; this is not a redemption of the property, so as to restore the 
title to the original owner. Thomaston Bank v. Stimpson, xxi. 195. 

12. Where a note is discounted at a bank, for the benefit of the first in- 
dorser, and the nK>ney is passed to his credit, as a deposit, and a portion of 
it remains in the bank, until tl»e note becomes payable, it is optional with the 
bank, to retain this money, in part payment of the note, or not. The omis- 
ion to retain it, does not destroy the right to recover the full amount from 
another indorser. Ticonic Bank v. Johnson, ;txi. 426. 

13. Where the cashier made an entry on the bank books, that a certain 
note had been discounted, it is competent for him to testify, that the entry 
was conditional, and made without authority, and, that the note was not then 
discounted. Ticonic Bank v. Johnson, xxi. 426. 

Digitized by 


94 WAMK. 

14. The Stat 1696, c. 288, does not render stxxskholders in a bank, who 
had become proprietors of their stock, previous to the passage of the act« 
personally liable for the debts of the bank« Wheeler v. Frontier Bank^ zziii. 

15. The mere service of a copy of a writ, in a suit then pending, upon 
the receivers of an insolvent bank, is not a compliance with the provisions ci 
the act of April 16, 1841, that creditors must bring in and prove their claims, 
if they would receive their share of the effects. Read v. Frankfort Bank^ 
XXIII. 318. 

16. The Stat 1831, c. 519, § 28, gives a remedy only to creditors of a 
bank, as holders of its bills, or otherwise, and not to the stockholders, against 
the directors thereof, for losses, arising ^^ from the official mismanagement 
of the directors.^^ Rich v. Shaw^ xxiii. 343. 

17. A person becomes legally entitled to shares in a bank, by their transfer 
to him on the bank books. The certificate of ownership is but additional 
evidence of title ; and the legal title will not be affected by the owner per* 
mitting the bank to treat them as its own property. Agricultural Bank v. 
Burr^ XXIV. 256. Agricultural Bank v. WiUan^ xxit. 273. 

18. The proper evidence, that fifty per cent of the capital stock of a bank 
has been paid in, within six • months after receiving its charter, is the certifi- 
cate of the commissioners, appointed for that purpose. Agricuitural Bank 
v. Burr^ xxiv. 256. 

19. When a bank has been m operation for several years, it is to be pre- 
sumed, that the remaining fifty per cent, of its capibd stock was paid in, 
within twelve months, after receiving its charier. Agricultural Bank v. 
Burr^ XXIV. 256. 

20. Where a bank charter takes effect on the first day of a certain month, 
the corporation may legally act under the charter on diat day ; and a legal 
transfer of shares in the bank may be made on the first day of the same 
month of the next year. Agricultural Bank v. Burr^ xxiv. 256. 

21. Individuab cannot be considered agents of a bank, in making their 
own note, payable to the same bank. Agricultural Bank v. Burr^ xxit. 

22. If a note be made to a bank, without consideration, for the purpose 
of enabling the corporation, by including it as a part of its funds, to make a 
colorable and false statement of its condition, although it might have been a 
just cause for a revocation of the charter, and, pertiaps, of indictment of the 
persons concerned, for a conspiracy to defraud, yet the bank cannot main- 
tain an action on such note. Agricultural Bank v. Robinson^ xxiv. 274. 

23. The provision, m the act of 1841, accepting the surrender of the char- 
ter of the Washington County Bank, directing a pro rata distribution of the 
assets, did not prevent a creditor from bringing a suit, to ascertain the amount 
due, upon a disputed claim ; and the directors, appointed by the governor and 
council, had power to enter into a reference of all demands between the bank 
and a creditor ; but no execution could be issued on the judgment recovered 
against the bank. Emerson v. Washington County Bank^ xxiv. 445. 

24. The directors of a bank have authority to settle with the cashier, whose 
accounts exhibit a deficiency in the funds ; and if they are guilty of fraudu- 
lent conduct, in such settlement it is still valid, unless the cashier also is guilty 
of fraud. Frankfort Bank v. Johnson^ xxit. 490« 

25. But if the cashier be guilty of fraud, in procuring the settlement to be 
made, the bank is not concluded thereby. Frtmkfort Bank v. Johnson^ xxit. 

Digitized by 



36. The acts, repealmg the charter of the Frankfort Bank, and providing 
for the distrihution of its funds by receiyers, incapacitated it any longer to sue, 
or be sued, in a court of law, otherwise, thcui to promote the objects confided 
to the receivers. Whitman v. Cox^ xxvi. 335. 

27. A stockholder of a bank, against which a suit is brought, whose proper- 
ty was attached, and who had a copy of the writ left with him, ib no party to 
such suit, individually, and has no right to appear and defend it, and may im* 
peach the judgment rendered therein, when introduced against him. tvhit' 
V. Coar, XXVI. 335. 

See Agsnct, IIL 17. 
Amendment, IL 29. 
Assumpsit, IV. 14. 
Contract, II. 8. 
Husband and Wife, m. 6, 7. 
Usage, 4. 


1. Where a creditor has reeovered judgment, in a foreign attachment 
against the principal debtor and trustee, and a demand has been made, by an 
c^cer, having the execution, upon the trustee, and afterwards the debtee 
files his petition in bankruptcy, and obtains his discharge as a bankrupt, such 
discharge furnishes no defence to a scire fadas against the trustee. JF^ank* 
Un Bank v. Bachdder^ xxiii. 60. 

2. Where the principal, in a poor debtor^s bond, has made no attempt to 
perform its conditions, and it is forfeited, and he afterwards files his petition 
and obtains his discharge in bankruptoy, this does not discharge the surety. 
Horn v. Nason^ xxiii. 101. 

3. Nor is the surety discharged, if the principal files his petition in bank- 
ruptcy, before the expiration of six months from the date of the bond. Crag' 
gin V. Baileyy xxiii. 104. 

4. A bankrupt may, after his bankruptcy, maintain, in his own name, a 
suit brought before he was declared a bankrupt, for a wrong, unless his as- 
signee sbDuld interpose an objection, and, if the cause of action have been 
equitaUy assigned before the bankruptcy, the suit may be afterwards prose- 
cuted, in the name of the bankrupt, for the benefit of the party in interest 
SawteUe v. RoUint^ xxiii. 196. 

5. If a bill in equity be brought by one of several partners, founded on 
partnership transactions, and some of the partners be bankrupts, their assign- 
ees should be made parties, in their place. FuUer v. Benjamin, xxui. 255. 

6. The bankruptcy, and discharge, of a husband, does not deprive a credi- 
tor of the wife, of the power to enforce payment of a debt incusred by her, 
when sole, against her property fraudulently conveyed by her, before die 
coverture ; but, in such case, th^ husband must be joined, as a defendant. 
Hamlin v. Bridge^ xxiv. 145. 

7. Where goods were attached, and the debtor, with another person, as 
surety, gives a receipt to the ofiicer, and, after the receiptors had become 
liable on their receipt, the debtor files his petition, and obtains his discharge, 
as a bankrupt ; the surety is not thereby discharged. Farnham v. Oilman^ 
XXIV. 250. 

Digitized by 



8. Prior to the stat 1644, c. 115, on discharge of a bankrupt from a suit, 
pending against him, he was entitled to costs. Famham v. Gihrum^ xxiv. 

9. Those contingent or uncertain demands, provided for in the bankrupt 
act, are such, as were in existence, at the time when the party was decreed a 
bankrupt, and, in such a condition, that their value might be estimated. Such 
were proveable under the bankrupt law ; but where there was a contingency, 
whether there would ever be a demand, this was not proveable. Woodard v. 
Herbert, xxiv. 358. 

10. A debtor was arrested on mesne process, and gave bond, to procure 
his release. The surety, in the bond, filed his petition, and was decreed a 
bankrupt Afterwards, judgment was rendered in the action, and the bond 
was forfeited ; and, aAer this, the surety received his discharge in bankruptcy. 
Held, that this discharge was no defence to an action on the bond. Wood- 
ard V. Herbert^ xxiv. 358. 

11. Where an officer attached goods, and took the debtor^s receipt therefor, 
and afterwards brought an action on the receipt, for his failure to deliver them, 
on demand ; and the debtor, subsequently to this, filed his petition, and ob- 
tained his discharge, in bankruptcy, which he pleaded in bar of the action, it 
was held to be a good bar. Fowles v. TreadweU, xxiv. 3T7. 

12. The bankrupt act of the U. S. of 1841, was constitutional, and equally 
affected debts contracted before and after its passage ; ukl, in cases of volun- 
tary, and involuntary, bankruptcy. Loud v. Pierce, xxv. 283. 

18. An omission, by accident, or mistake, to include some articles of pro- 
perty in the bankrupt's schedule of effects, is not evidence of fraud, or wilful 
concealment of property, within the meaning of the bankrupt act. Loud v. 
Pierce, xxv. 233. 

14. In an action upon a note, where bankruptcy is alleged in defence, and 
the discharge is impeached, on the ground of a prior fraudulent sale of goods 
to a third person, the purchaser is a competent witness. Loud v. Pierce, 
xxv. 288. 

15. If one, of several joint promisers, pending a suit against them on the 
contract, file his petition, and obtain his discharge in bankruptcy and plead it, 
and its validity is denied, <hi the ground of fraud, a verdict and judgment may 
be leg ally rendered in his favor, and against the other defendants. Cohum 
v. Ware, xxv. 880. 

16. The declarations of a bankrupt, made, by request of the assignee, at 
the place, and immediately before, the sale, of the bankrupt's personal efl^ts, 
are admissible in evidence, to affect a title, afterwards acquired through the 
assignee. Holt v. Walker, xxvi. 107. 

See Amendment, II. 41. 



1. Under the Stat 1785, c. 66. (stat 1821, c. 72.) for the support and 

Digitized by 


BAlTAmDT, I. n. 97 

maintenance of bastard children, a bond is not necessary, to give jurisdiction 
to the C. C. P., if the defendant appear, either in person, or by attorney. 
Mariner v. Dyer^ ii. 165. Corson v. TuitU^ xix. 409. 

2. A bond, given under the bastardy act, conditioned, that die accused shall 
appear and aiude the order of court, obliges him to the payment of such 
money, as the court shall order for the maintenance of the child, as well as to 
give a new bond, for the performance of such order. Taylor v. Hughes^ 
III. 433. 

3. Prosecutions, under the bastardy act of 1821, c. 72, are not local. Den- 
neU y. KmuiUmdy vi. 460. 

4. It k not necessary, tha^ the complainant should allege, in her complaint 
before the magistrate, that she accused the putative father, during her travail. 
Dmneti v. Knedandy vi. 460. 

5. Where a complainant, in a bastardy process, alleged, that the child, of 
which she was then pregnant, was begotten on, or about a certain day in 
April, widKHit saying in iHiat year, this was held, to refer to the April, next 
preceding. TilUon v. Bowley^ tiii. 163. 

6. A prosecution under the stat 1821, c. 72, may be maintained, though 
the accusation and complaint are made af^er the birth of the child. KenUton 
V. RotDCy xvu 38. 

7. It is not necessary, that the complaint and the examination should bo 
separate instruments. Woodward v. ShaWj xviii. 304. 

8. If the complainant be under twenty-one years of age, she need not act 
by guardian, or prochein ami ; nor can her guardian control, or dismiss the 
proceedings. Low v. MitcheUj xviii. 372. 

9- The stat 1831, c. 487, provides only for the enlargement of the accused^ 
from prison, but does not afiect the bond. Corson v. TiUtle^ xix. 409. 

10. A recognizance, taken by a magistrate, in a bastardy process, instead 
of a bcmd, is inoperative and void. Mariner v. Dyer^ ii. 165. 

11. If the mother of a bastard child marry, before a prosecution, and one 
be afterwards instituted, the husband should join in the complaint. Keniston 
V. Rotoe, XVI. 38. 

12. Tlie statute of limitations is no bar to a prosecution, under the bastardy 
act. Keniston v. Rowe^ xvi. 38. 

13. After the passage of the act, establishing a municipal court in Portland, 
and before the Revisea Statutes, a justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of 
complaints under the bastardy act, where both parties lived in Portland. A 
bond, therefore, taken by direction of a justice of the peace, in that place, 
during that time, both the parties living there, was void. Robinson v. Sweit^ 
xivT. 378. 

14. A judgment of filiation, under the process, in which a bond was so 
taken, does not, in a suit upon the bond, preclude the defendant from question- 
ing the validity of the bond. Robinson v. Swett^ xxvi. 378. 


1. In prosecutions, under the bastardy act, the complainant must file a de- 
claration in the court, stating, that she has been delivered of a bastard child, 
which was begotten upon her body by the person accused ; the time and 
place, when and where it was begotten, with as much precision, as the case 

Digitized by 



will admit ; that, being put upon the diflooTeiy of the truth, during the time of 
her travail, she accus^ the respondent, of being the father of the child ; and, 
that she has continued constant in the accusation. To such declaration the 
plea to the merits is, not guilty. Foster v. Beaty^ i. 804. 

2. A trial by jur^, in a bastardy process, is for the benefit of the defend- 
ant, and, if he waive it, and be defaulted, the court may render judgment 
of filiation thereon. Marimer v. X>yer, ii. 165. 

3. To sustain a pro8ecuti<m under the bastardy act, it is essential, that it 
be proved, that the mother accused the putative father during travail, and be* 
fore delivery. DtnneU v. Kneeland^ vi. 460. Lorvag v. O^BmiauU^ xii. 

4. Where the complainant, in the time of her travail, said, that the child 
was P. T's (the respondent's) or not any one's, this was held sufficient TiU' 
$on V. Bowleyy viii. 163. 

5. The complainant is not bound to answer the question, whether she has had 
intercourse with another man, who might have been the father of the child ; 
but she b bound to answer all questions material to the issue, in relation to 
her alleged connexion with the respondent, at the time, to which she has testi- 
fied. TilUon V. Bowley^ viii. 163. Low v. Mitchelly xviii. 372. 

6. The process, under the bastardy act, will not be defeated by the feet, 
that the child needed no support, at the time of the commencement of the 
proceedings, or of the trial. Keniston v. Rowe, xvi. 38. 

7. Testimony of resemblance of the child to the alleged father, or of the 
want of it, being matter of mere opinion, and not of fact, is inadmissible. 
KenUl^n v. Aow^, xvi. 38. 

8. If the mother of a bastard child, after its birth, or after her examination 
before a magistrate, declare, that the accused is not the father of the child, 
and that another man is, she is not constant in her accusation, and is incom- 
petent to testify, in support of her complaint Bradford v. Pott/, xviii. 30. 
Bwrges9 v. Boswortky xxiii. 573. 

9. The competency of the complainant, as a witness, is preliminary, in its 
character, and to be determined by the court, and not submitted to the jury. 
Bradford v. Pott/, xviii. 30. 

10. A settlement of a bastardy process, by the mother, or by the town, 
without the consent of the other, is no discharge of the respondent ; therefore, 
a note, given upon such settlement, is without consideration, and payment can- 
not be enforced. Harmon v. Merrill^ xviii. 160. 

11. The admissions of the respondent, that he was the father of the child, 
and his promise to marry the mother, though not, of themselves, sufficient to 
sustain the prosecution, are admissible in evidence, on the trial of the bastar- 
dy process, to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. Woodward v. 
SJkato, xviii. 304. 

12. The requirement of the statute, that the mother shall be " constant in 
such accusation,'' refers only to the man accused ; and a variance, as to 
time, place, or circumstances, may affect her credit, but not her competency. 
Woodward v. Shaw^ xviii. 304. 

13. The respondent cannot give in evidence, that he had always sustained 
a good character, in every respect Low v. Mitchell^ xviii. 372. 

14. The constancy^ required by the statute, is, from the time of the nM>th- 
er's accusation of the respondent, before the magistrate, and, in the time of 
ber travail. If she had previously accused another person, even by com- 

Digitized by 



plaint uader oath, this affects her credibility only, not her competency. Btir- 
geu V. Bimoarthj zxiii. 578. 
See Maitdamus, 1. 


1. After judgment of filiation, the court may order the putative father to 
pay a sum weekly, tiU further order of court Also, may award judgment 
against him for costs : and, in case of his avoidance, may award a capias 
against him, for contempt Mariner v. Dyer^ dl 165. 

2. Whetiier the provisions of the statutes, respecting the granting of re- 
views and new trials, extend to prosecutions under the bastardy act, quaere, 
Gcweny ex parte^ nr. 58. 

3. The adjudication of the court of common pleas, by which the custody 
of an illegitimate child was committed to the putative father, and his exclu« 
sive support and control of the child, for sixteen years, is not such an eman- 
eipatien from the mother, that tbe child could lose his settlement by birth, 
Bnd acquire a new one, in his own right Fayette v. Leede^ z. 409. 

See Costs, I. (b) 2. 

See PiESORiPTioN, 1, 2. 


1. A tenant in common, who has ousted his co-tenant, is entitled, in a 
writ of entry against him, to have a moiety of the increased value of the 
premises, by reason of his improvements, ascertained by the jury, under the 
statutes of 1807, c. 75; 1819, c. 269, and 1820, c. 47. Brackett v. iVbr- 
croM, I. 89. 

2. After the demandant, in a writ of entry, has abandoned, to the tenant, 
the land demanded, at the value estimated by the jury, the tenant can no 
longer be considered as holding it, by virtue of a possession and improve* 
loent Pro. Ken, Purchase v. Dame^ i. 309. 

3. If the tenant do not pay the value, within the limited periods, he is con- 
sidered, as pelding to the demandant all his title and claim, both to the soil, 
and the improvements thereon ; and he cannot have them again estimated, in 
a ieire facias^ brought by the demandant, to revive the original judgment 
Pro, Ken. Purchase v. Davis^ i. 309. 

4. Where the occupant of land made a written contract with the proprietor, 
to purchase it, at a stipulated price, which he did not fulfil ; and, afterwards, 
conveyed all his right in the land to a third person, without notice of his ccm- 
tract with the proprietor ; it was held, that the grantee, after six years, in an 
action by the proprietor, was entitled to the increased value of the premises, 
made by himself, but not to the benefit of those made by his grantor. Pro, 
Ken, Purchase v. Kavanagh^ i, 348. 

5. An o&r, niade by the tenant, in a real action, under stat 1820, c. 47, 

Digitized by 



^ 4, cannot ailerwards be withdrawn by him, it being in the nature of an ad- 
mission by him, of the value of the estate. Pro, Kgh, Pur^Me v. Doftis^ 
II. 352. 

6. Where such offer was made in the C. C P., and the demandant pro- 
ceeded to trial, and the jury estimated the land lower, and the betterments 
higher, than the tenant offered, and the demandant appealed to the S. J. C, 
it was held, that the demaudant^s right to accept the offer still continued, and 
might be exercised ; but whether he might accept such offer, ailer proceeding 
to a verdict in a final trial, is questionable. Pro. Kau Purchase v. DaoiSy 
II. 352. 

7. Where, in a writ of entry, the demandant abandoned the land to the 
tenant, at the price found by the jury, for which sum, judgment was there- 
upon rendered for him, and the tenant appealed, but fkiled to enter his ap- 
peal ; upon complaint of the demandant, the judgment of the court below, 
for the value of the land in money, was affirmed, with interest and single costs. 
Knox v. Lermondy in. 377. 

8. Where judgment is to be entered for the demandant, for the value of 
the land, at the price estimated by the jury, if judgment, upon the verdict, 
has been delayed, at the request of the tenant, interest will be added, from 
the time of finding the verdict, and judgment rendered for the sum, thus as- 
certained. Wintkrop v. Curtis^ iv. 2^7, 

9. The equitable claims of a tenant in possession, under the bettennent act, 
are not affected by a judgment, in a petition for partition, though he may have 
appeared as a respondent, and pleaded to the process. Baylies v. Bussey^ 
V. 153. 

10. Where the demandant claimed title, by virtue of the levy of an exe- 
cution, issued on a judgment in his favor, against the estate of an intestate, 
and, at the time of the extent, the land was in possession of the tenant, who 
was administrator on the estate, and who had made improvements thereon, 
all of which were included in the appraisal, at the time of the extent ; it was 
held, that the tenant was not entitled to the value of such improvements, 
as against the demandant ; but, as the estate of the intestate had received the 
benefit of them, in the appraisal, he anight charge the amount, in hb admin- 
istration account against the estate. Webber v. Webbery vi. 127. 

11. An ofier to purchase, made by the tenant, to the true owner, does not 
prejudice the right of the former, to betterments ; if such offer has not ripen- 
ed into a contract Blanchard v. Cliapmany vii. 122. KeUey v. KeUey^ 
xxiii. 192. 

12. It is a question for the court, and not for the jury, whether, upon a 
given state of facts, a tenant is entitled to 'betterments. Blanchard v. Che^ 
wiany vii. 122. 

13. The equitable claim of a tenant, to the value of his improvements, 
may be conveyed by parol, accompanied by an actual transfer of possession 
to the purchaser ; it being not an interest in the land, but merely an equitable 
right to compensation for the betterments. Lombard v. RuggleSy ix. 62. 

14. One, holding an estate in dower, under a widow, is not entitled to 
betterments, against the reversioner, at the termination of the life estate. 
Maddocks v. Jellisony xi. 482. Vamey v. Stevens^ xxii. 331. 

15. Where one entered upon lands belonging to Massachusetts, lying within 
this state, and continued thereon, more than six years, and made improve- 
ments, he was held entitled to betterments, against a grantee of the common- 
wealth, who brought his acti<m within six years from the time of his purchase. 
Fisk V. Briggs, xii. 373. 

Digitized by 


BXTTSXinUfTS. 101 

16. Tlie demandant, in a real acdon, is entitled to have his codts set off 
against the value of the improvements, found for the tenant, under the better- 
ment act Capp V. Lamb^ xiiu 288. Kinsman v. Greene^ xvi. 60. 

17. Where the state, by mere release, without covenants, conveys lands in 
the occupancy of another, he will be entitled to betterments, against the gran- 
tee of the state. Kinsman v. Greene^ xvi. 60. 

18. Where a verdict had been returned for the demandant, in a real action, 
and the value of the land and improvements found ; and the demandant did 
not abandon, nor pay for the improvements, within a year, nor pay the costs ; 
he is not entitled to his writ of possession, and cannot lawfully enter into 
possession, by virtue of such judgment, and cannot maintain a new action. 
Yet, the tenant may waive his ri^t to retain the land for payment of the im- 
provements, and leave the effect of the judgment unimpaired. Crilman v. 
Stetson^ XVI. 124. GUman v. Stetson, xviii. 428. 

19. In an action to recover betterments, under the stat 1821, c. 62, ^ 5, 
proof of an entry, by one having a bond from the defendants, to convey the 
land to him, wit}M>ut other authority, does not render them liable. Briggs 
V. Fiske, zvii. 420. 

20. If the occupant of land admits, in writing, the title of the proprietor, 
this is a voluntary submission to that title, and a surrender of any rights, ac- 
quired by prior possession ; and he will acquire no title to the soil or improve- 
m«[itB, by subsequent possession, until after there is proof of a new act of 
disseizin. Lamh v. ]^oss, xxi. 240. KelUy v. KeUey, zziii. 192. 

21. Where the tenant, in a writ of entry, had given a bond of the demand- 
ed premises, and the obligee had entered, and made improvements, and af- 
terwards given up the land, and surrendered the bond to the tenant ; and, 
sabsequently, the tenant had given a bond to another person, who had*entered 
and made mfiprovements, but had forfeited his claim, by failure to fulfil the 
conditions of the bond, and was still occupying the land, in submission to the 
title of the tenant, it was held, that the tenant was entitled to have the im- 
provements allowed to him, made by both the o blig ees, they having been in 
possession under him, more than six years. Vnlliams v. Kinsman, xxi. 

22. To sustain a claim for betterments, under the stat. 1821, c. 62, ^ 5, the 
tenant must have been in possession six years, bv virtue of a possession ofid 
in^ovement, as specified in stat 1820, c. 47, § 1. The former should be 
coostrued in reference to the provisions of the last mentioned act Comings 
V. Stuart, XXII. 110. 

23. The stat 1821, c. 62, ^ 5, provides only for the case of an entry by 
the owner of the land, upon a tenaht, actually in possession, and entitled to 
the improvements. An action, therefore, founded merely upon a possessory 
title, brought by a purchaser of such title, who had never been in actual poe- 
session, cannot be maintained. Chapman v. Butler, xxii. 191. 

24. Where the defendant, being in possession of land, sold to the plaintiff 
his right to the improvements, and agreed to remove therefrom in two years ; 
and, afterwards, before the expiration of the two years, purchased the land 
from the true owner, and then refused to give possession to the plaintiff, it 
was held, that, to set up this newly acquir^ title, to defeat his previous con- 
veyance of the improvements, was a fraud upon the plaintiff, and, as a court 
of law would not afibrd an adequate remedy, the plaintiff might have relief^ 
by a bill in equity. Chapman v. Butler, xxii. 191. 

25. A tenant, claiming, by virtue of a possessi<Hi and improvement, may, 

Digitized by 



in writing, contract to purchase the title, without altering die character of hb 
occufMuicy, if the terms of the contract show, that the intention was, to pur- 
chase, and sell, not a full and perfect title, but one, incumbered by such ckum. 
Keilep V. Kdley, xxiii. 192. 

26. To entitle the tenant to betterments, the ^ actual possessimi, for six 
years, or more,'* should be immediately preceding the commencement of 
the suit, and hot at some remote period. Kelley v. KeUeify xxiii. 192. 

27. To entitle a tenant to claim betterments, his holding should be adverse 
to the legal title ; and, therefore, a tenant, holding under a bond for a deed 
from the owner, is not entitled to the value of lus improvements. Dreat v. 
S&ie^lattd, xxiii. 234. 

28. The Stat 1821, c. 62, § 5, has reference only to an entty, without 
judgment of law. Crilnum v. Stetson^ xvi. 124. 

29. The provisions of the stat 1843, c. 6, must be construed prospective- 
ly, and do not apply to a case, where the estate for life had terminated, and 
the title to the improvements had become vested in the reversioner, before 
the passage of the act Austin v. Stevens^ xxiv. 520. 

See Agbnct, VII, 8, 9. 
Arbitration, IV. 8. 
Real Actions, V. 5, 8. 
Trustee Process, L (b) 4. 



(a) Gkrkbal bk^uisitki. 

(b) Absolutk OB coNTiiroiirT. 








(•) Wbbv feoeisabt. 


(c) At wbat time ahd place. 


(e) Pbotest. 



(a) Wbbit, and bt wbom, ait action is maintainable. 

(b) Wben subject TO equities between otbeb parties. 

(c) Defences. 


Digitized by 









(f) WhBIT hot TALID. 


(a) General requitUes. 

L A promissory note, liable to be stamped, by the act of ConffresB, of 
July 6, 1797, cannot be read in evidence, unless it has been stamp^, or the 
holder has complied with the requisitions of the act of April 6, 1802. Leao* 
iu T. LeatUt^ iv. 161. 

2. It is not essential to the validity of a bill of exchange, that it should bo 
payable to order, or bearer, or at any particular time, or place ; nor that 
It should have the words, value received. Kendall v. Gahin^ xv. 181. 

3. A bill of exchange, drawn by a person, residing in one state of the 
union, upon a person, residing in another, and payable there, is a foreign bill. 
Green v. Jackeimj xv. 136. Freeman*8 Bank v. Perkins^ xviii. 292. 

4. So are all bills, payable out of the state. Warren v. Coombs^ xx. 139. 

5. A note, payable to two persons, who are not partners, by their surnames 
only, is good, and may be recovered, in a suit by them, on proof of identity. 
Rogers v. Reed, xviii. 257. 

6. A promissory note, made on the Lord^s day, given and received, as the 
consideration for articles, purchased on that day, is void. Towle v. Larrahee^ 
XXVI. 464. 

(b) Absolute or contingent. 

1. A promise to pay a sum of money, ^^ when I shall receive or realize the 
above sum,^^ from a certain source, is a promise to pay so much, as may be 
realized therefrom, though it fall short of the whole amount promised. AU 
drich V. JVwr, i. 316. 

2. By articles of agreement, A. covenanted to convey to B., a certain lot 
of land, if B. should pay, at maturity, certain notes, given at the same time ; 
if not so paid, the agreement to be void, and B. was to pay all damages, and 
forfeit all that he should previously have paid. In a suit on one of the notes, 
it was held, that the notes, and the articles of agreement, were independent, 
and, that the suit might be maintained, without proving an ofier to convey ; 
though the plaintiflT thereby waived his right to avoid his covenant to convey. 
Manning v. Brown^ x. 49. 

3. Where the defendant, by writing, agreed to purchase a certain piece of 
land of the plaintiff, for a stipulated price, to be paid to J. W., and, after* 
wards, the plaintifi* acknowledged, on the back of the agreement, that he had 
received therefor two notes of hand, ^^ upon condition, that the notes shall be 
transferred to J. L., as agent for J. W., agreeable to the within agreement f ^ 
in an action, by the plamtifiT, upon one of these notes, it was held, that the 
agreements might be received in evidence, to show, that the note was given 
on a condition precedent, and thus defeat the action. Davlin v. Hiil^ xi. 

4. Wliere the plaintiff withdrew a suit pending, and wrote a discharge of 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 


the notes, on which the actioa had heen brought, on copies thereof; and a 
new note was signed and delivered, upon the condition, tluU the original notes 
should be procu]^ed and sent to the defendant, in two weeks ; this was held 
to be a condition subsequent, the non-performance of which could not be set 
up, as a legal defence to an action on the last note. Goddard v. Cutts^ xl 

5. Where a note is made payable from the avails of certain logs, ^^ when 
there is a sale made,'^ it is not payable upon a contingency ; but absolutely, 
when a reasonable time has elapsed, to make sale of the logs. Sear$ y. 
Wright^ XXIV. 278. 

(c) Construction. 

1. If the place of payment of a note is designated, in a memorandum at 
the bottom, or, if a place of pa3nfnent is affixed to the acceptance, with the 
holder^s consent, such memorandum, or qualification, is a part of the con- 
tract And if only the name of a place be written at the bottom of the note, 
the jury may determine, when, by whom, and for what purpose, it was placed 
there. Tuckerman v. HartweUy iii. 147. 

2. A note, made payable to a female, afler her marriage, by her maiden 
name, the maker, and her attorney, who received it, being ignorant of the 
marriage, enures to the husband, and may be sued in his name. Templeton 
V. Cram^ v. 417. 

3. A note, made payable to 6. W., as treasurer of a corporation, is pay- 
able to the corporation, and may be sued in their name. Levant Min, 4* Sc. 
Fund V. Parks, x. 441. 

4. A note, payable to a married woman, is, in law, a note to the husband, 
and becomes instantly his property. Savage v. King, xvii. 901. 

5. Where the date of the note is the only date upon it, the indorsements 
are to be considered, as made at that time, unless proved to have been made 
subsequently. Burnham v. Webster, xix. 232. 

6. Where, in the body of a note, the makers describe themselves, as trus* 
tees of a voluntary association, but affix their own names, those words are to 
be taken, as merely descriptive, and they are personally liable. Fogg v. 
Virgin, xix. 352. 

(d) Consideration, 

1. Where the owner of goods, then in the hands of another, sold them to 
the defendant, and took his note therefor, and gave him an order upon the 
person having them in custody, to deliver them, which he refused to do ; in 
an action upon the note, it was holden, that the defendant might avail himself 
of this fact, in defence, as a failure of consideration, or as a set-off. Aldrich 
V. Fox, I. 316. 

2. In an action, by the payee, against the maker of a note, given for land, 
conveyed by deed with the usual covenants of seizin and warranty, it is not 
competent for the defendant to set up, in defence, a partial failure of title, or 
a want of title in the grantor, at the time of the conveyance. Lloyd v. Jew* 
ell, I. 352. Wentworth v. Goodwin, xxL 150. 

3. Where one, holding a right to redeem lands under a mortgage, made a 
bond to the defendant, conditioned to convey a parcel thereof to him, by war- 
rantee deed, on payment of certain notes, given by him for the purchase 

Digitized by 



money, and died iiwdvent, the mortgage being unpaid ; it was held, that the 
fiuhire of oonnderation was no defence to an action by the administrator, 
on the note, and the only remedy for the defendant was, upon the covenants 
in the bond* Read v. Cummi $tg$, ii. 62. 

4. In an action, on a note, given for the purchase money of land conveyed 
by the plaintiff to the defendant, by deed of release and quitclaim, without 
covenants, it is not a good defence, that the plaintiff represented his title to 
be in fee simple, when, in feet, it was but an estate for life ; nothing short of 
a total failure of title would, in such case,- be a sufficient defence to the action. 
Howard v. WUham^ ii. 890. 

5. A promise to pay the debt of another, in consideration, that the creditor 
will forbear, and give further time of payment of the debt, though no particu- 
lar time of forbearance is stipulated, is founded on sufficient consideration, 
the creditor averring that he did, thereupon, forbear from such a day to such a 
day. King v. Upton, iv. 387. 

6. Where several persons subscribed to a fund, for the support of public 
worship, on condition, that the trustees should manage the funds in a certain 
manner, and apply the income to the support of a congregational minister, 
and to the payment of the parish taxes, which might be assessed on the sub- 
scribers ; and notes were given therefor ; it was hield, that the acceptance of 
^ conditions, prescribed on tho part of tfa^ trustees, formed a good considera- 
tion for the notes ; and, that the subsequent change of the articles of faith, by 
the church, would not absolve the subscribers from their liability. Fryeburg 
Parsonage Funds v. Ripley^ vi. 442. 

7. W. gave his promissory note to a manufecturing corporation, in con- 
sideration of a written engagement of R., who signed as agent of the corpora- 
tion, but without authority, to procure the obligation of the treasurer, for two 
shares of their capital stock. R. obtained the obligation of the treasurer, to 
deliver certificates of two shares, on payment of the note. Held, that the 
engagement of R., by which he was personally bound, was a sufficient con- 
sideration for the note ; and, that no tender of the treasurer's obligation was 
necessary. Saco Manuf, Co. v. Whitney, vii. 256. 

8. Where one, being indebted to a lottery ticket vender, for tickets, some 
of which were illegal, made a remittance, which more than covered the 
amount ; and, afterwards, purchased other tickets, which were legal, which 
were charged on the same account, bemg open and unsettled, and, in a 
final adjustment, gave a note to the. vender for a balance due to him ; it was 
held, that the remittance was intended to be applied to the amount then due, 
and could not be construed, to apply to the subsequent purchases, so as to in- 
validate the note, for the illegali^ of the previous account, thus made to form 
a part of the consideration. Greenough v. Balch, vii. 461. 

9. In all notes and other simple contracts, evidence of the c<msideration 
may be received, in an action between the original parties. Folsom v. Mvs- 
sey, VIII. 400. Goddard v. Cults, xi. 440. Stevens v. MchUire, xiv. 14. 
Wolcoit V. Strout, xix. 132. 

10. Where the defendant, being agent for the plaintiff, for sale of his lum- 
ber, had taken a note, payable to the plaintiff, for some of the lumber sold ; 
and, afterwards, the plaintiff made a transfer of the note, and the remainder of 
the lumber, to the defendant, taking his note for the estimated amount ; with 
a verbal agreement, that the defendant should be required to pay only so 
much, as he might actually realize from the property ; it was hold, that these 
circumstances might be shown, in defence to an action on the note, given by 


Digitized by 



the defendant, to prove a partial Mure of conndeiation ; tke defendaoi havuig 
used due diligence to collect the first mentioned note. FoUom t. Ifiaaeyt 
VIII. 400. 

1 1. The aaaignment of a judgment and execution, mado hy the attorneys 
of the creditor, who does not interfere, is a sufficient connderation for a note 
given therefor to him, who is the equitable owner of the judgment. Traftan 
V. Rogers^ ziu. 815. 

12. Where the obligee of a bond, for the conveyance |of land, agreed to 
sell one half of his interest to the defendant, for the same sum, that he had 
given therefor, and, through the misrepresentationB of the obligee, the defend- 
ant oave his note for four times that amount ; it was held, that the assignor 
should recover, on the note, the amount by him paid, as had been agreeclc, and 
no more. Stevens v. Mclniire^ xiv. 14. 

18. Where the defendant deposited, with a third person, his note, to be de* 
livered to the plaintiff, on his procuring, and assigning to the defendant a 
bond of a certain tract of land ; and the plaintiff procured an agreement, 
not under seal, from the owner of the land, which he assigned to the de- 
fendant, and received the note, it was held, that this was a aiifficient compli- 
ance with the contract, and, that the note was not without consideration. 
Stone V. Bradburp, xiv. 185. 

14. If a note has been indorsed and transferred, hma Jide^ before it was 
payable, the want of consideration is no defence a^iinst a subsequent holder, 
to whom it was passed, after it fell due, diough it was indorsed as collateral 
security for a demand^ short of its nominal vedue. Smith v. Hiseock^ xnr. 

15. Where the consideration of a note was an agreement to assign a con- 
tract, to carrv the United States mail, which had been assigned to the plain- 
tiff by the original contractor, and the postmaster general a&rwaids declared 
the contract forfeited, by such assignment, it was held, that the consideration 
of the note had failed, and an action upon it oould not be maintained. Socage 
V. Whitaier, xv. S4. 

16. Where a negotiable note has been assigned, before it was payable, hot 
not indorsed, proof by the maker, that there was no consideration, or that the 
note was fraudulently obtained by the payee, is admissive. Colder v. Bil» 
lingUm^ XT. 898. 

17. An existing note, avoidable for want of consideration, may sometimes 
be a sufficient consideration for a new promise. Warren Academy v. Star* 
rettj XV. 448. 

18. Want of consideration is not a defence 'to an action on a note, indorsed 
to the plailitiff, before it was payable, in payment of a pre-existing debt, with- 
out notice of any defence, nomet v. Smyths xn. 177. Lewis v. Hodg^ 
lion, xni. 267. 

19. A note, given to the treasurer of a town, on a settlement of a bastar- 
dy process, without assent or ratification of the mother, is without consider- 
ation, and void. Harmon v. Merrill^ xviii. 150. 

20. The relinquishment, by a child to his father, by writing, not imder seal, 
of all claim to the father's estate, on receiving a note against a third person, 
indorsed by the father, is a good consideration for such indorsement. TFe«- 
ton V. Highty xviii. 281. 

21. The consideration of the contract between the principal parties is a 

Digitizetl by 



good conaidenttHm.for the pronfee of a surety. Hughes v. LUtl^dd^ xviii. 
400. Beioum y. WhUney, xx. 418. - 

22. Tl»e purchaser of a note, voidable for want of consideration, from an 
innocent indorsee, without notice, is entided to Ae same 'protection, as his 
▼ender, diough hejmrchased, with a full knowledge of such want of consid- 
eration. M<ukelrY. Whitmore, xi^ 102. Dudley v. Littlefidd, xxi. 418. 

23. A note, payable to a peraoA ^amed, or bearer, is payable to the bear- 
er ; and a person, lawfully obtaining possession of it, for a valuable consid- 

' eration, is not required to show any consideration betweeh i^ maker and the 
person, named as payee. Eddff v. Bond^ lux. 461. r. 

24. Want ofconsideration is a ggStd defence to an action on a bill^^'accept- 
• ed by the de^lSUuit, and delivered tof^e plaintiff, on a contract without con- 
sideration, urwhich the defendant wa!^s6rety. Norton v. Heywoody xx. 359. 

. 25. The aBrformance of labor, foT'^m association, is a good consideration 
for a note gi^n therefor, by one of its members. Chick v. Trevett^ xx. 462. 

26. A note, given for the consideration of a conveyance of real estate, is 
recoverable, if any title or interest, or any thins valuable, passed thereby. 
And, if there be a partial failure of consideration, the grantee is remitted 
to his covenants, if there be any, for his remedy. Wentworth v. Goodwin^ 
XXI. 150. Severance v, Whittiery xxiv. 120. Jenness v. Parker^ xxiv. 

27. Where the plaintiff purchased a note against the defendant, upon his 
express promise, to pay the amount thereof to him, in sixty days, the defend- 
ant is not permitted to avail himself of a prior failure of consideration, in de- 
fence to an action thereon, although the plaintiff knew the facts, in relation 
thereto, at the time of his purchase. Broum v. Daggett^ xxii. 30. 

28. Where part of the consideration of a promissory note is illegal, the 
whole note is void. Deermg v. Chapman^ xxii. 488. 

29. If a part of the consideration of a note be spirituous liquors, sold by 
the payee, in less quantities than twenty-eight gallons, without license, the note 
is wholly void. Deering v. Chapman^ xxii. 488. 

30. And, where partial p^meidts have been made, less than the amount 
cbai^d for the liquors, ana a note given for the balance of the account, it 
will still be entirely void. Deering v. Chapman^ xxii. 488. 

31. If a patent right, which was the consideration of a note, be not entirely 
worthless, the payee may recover the full amount of the note. Clark v. 
Peahodyy xxii. 500. 

32. To avoid a note, 'j^en for boCirds, in the county of Penobscot, not Qir- 
reyed, in pursuance of the act, regulating the survey of lumber within that 
county, the defendant must not only prove, that the boards were sold, within 
the county, without survey, but, thai they were not purchased for the defend- 
ant's own use, or for home consumption, and, that the parties did not agree 
to have the lumber shipped, without survey. Whitman v. Freese^ xxiii. 

33. If an agent sells property of his principal, and, in payment to him 
therefor, indorses a note, which was not taken for the property sold, such 
agent cannot set up want of consideration,* in \defence of an action, against 
him, as indorser. Crocker v. Getchelly xxiii. 392. 

34. A partial failure of the consideration of a note, given for goods sold and 
delivered, is a good defence, pro tanto^ in a suit between the original parties. 
Wadeworth v. Smithy xxiii. 562. 

85. A guaranty of payment of a pre-existing note, where the only consid- 

Digitized by 



eration is, a past benefit, or favor conferred, and without any design or 
expectation of remuneration, is without any valuable conudeiatioB, and can- 
not be enforced. Ware v. Adami^ xxiv. 177. 

36. Where a note was given to a bank, to enable the corporation to make 
a colorable and false statement of its actual condition, and, with an agree- 
ment, that the makers should not be called upon to pay the note, any injurious 
consequences, which might afterwards arise, to the bank, or to other individ- 
uals, in consequence of such proceeding, cannot constitute a valuable con- 
sideration for the note. Agricultural Bank v. RoHnsotij xxiv. 274. 
. 37. In this state, it has not been authoritatively settled, that a total want of 
title in the grantor, will not be a good defence to a note, given in considera- 
tion of his conveyance, when not in the hands of an innocent indorsee. Jim- . 
ness V. Parker^ xxiv. 289. 

38. Where a contract was signed by an agent, in behalf of hi^principal, to 
convey certain lands, on payment of a note ^iven therefor, and such contract' 
does not bind the principal, but the agent is personally responsible for dam- 
ages, for non-fulfihnent of the contract, the payment of the note cannot be 
avoided, for want of consideration. Dyer v. numham^ xiv. 9. 

39. If a note be given, in consideration of an assignment of one half of 
a bond, or contract, by a third pers(m, to convey lands, on making certain 
payments ; and the contract be, that, in addition to the note, the maker thereof 
shall pay to the obligoi' one half of the purchase money, payable in instal- 
ments, and both parties fail to make their payments, but no injury is sustain- 
ed thereby, and all parties treat it as still subsisting, such neglect of payment 
furnishes no defence, on the ground of failure of consideration. Dyer v. 
Bumham^ xxv. 9. 

40. And, if the bond or contract become forfeited, by reason of non-payment, 
by both parties, and the payee of the note afterwards joins with others, iu 
obtaining a new contract, for a conveyance of the land, on more favorable terms, 
this furnishes no defence to a suit upon the note. Dyer v. Bumhtan^ zxv. 9. 

41. Where failure of consideration is set uf, as a defence to an action on 
a note, expressed to be for value received, the burden of proof is on the de- 
fendant Sawyer v. Vaughan^ xxv. 337. 

42. A note, given for a release and conveyance of a title, equally known 
to both to be doubtful, cannot be avoided, for want of consideration, though 
the grantor had no valid title. Sawyer v. Vaughan^ xxv. 337. 

43. A note, given to prevent the sale of an equity of redemption, or to 
induce the payee to give up an attachment on the land, cannot be avoided, 
for want of consideration. Bradbury v. Blake^ xxv. 397. 

See Agency, III. 13. 

(e) When it is a discharge of the original cause of action, 

1. The legal presumption, from the fact of drawing a negotiable order, or 
making a negotiable note, which is received by the creditor, is, that it was 
intended to be, and is, an extinguishment of the original demand, or cause of 
action. But this presumption may be controled, by the agreement of the 
parties, or by proof of usages or circumstances, inconsistent with such pre- 
sumption. Vamer v. Nobleborough^ ii. 121. DescadiUas v. Harris^ viii. 
298. Gilmore v. Bussey^ xii. 418. Comstock v. Smith, xiiii. 202. 

2. A note, or other engagement, whk;h may be enforced at law, whether 
negotiable or not, given to a third person, by the appointment and direction 

Digitized by 



of the creditor, is a discharge of the debtor from the simple contradt debt. 
Wise V. Hilton^ iv. 435. McLeUan y. Crofton^ vi. 307. 

3. Where one of the joint owners of a vessel purchased. supplies for her, 
and gave therefor a negc^iable note, in their joint names, but without author- 
ity from the other ; in an action, by the promisee against both, it was held, 
that, as the note was not binding upon both, it was no extinguishment of the 
original cause of action, and, that the plaintiff might recover against them, on 
the general counts. Wtlkins v. Reedy vi. 220. 

4. A negotiable security, given in a foreign country, is not to be regarded 
here, as an extinguishment of a simple contract debt, there created, unless 
it is maffe^so, by 9ie laws of that country. Descadillas v. Harris^ viii. 296. 

5. A note, not negotiable, given for a subsisting account, is no bar to an 
actio^n the account Jhttton Min, and Sch, Fund v. Kendrick^ xii. 381. 
Edmand v. CMdwell, xv. 340. 

6. If the yonder of goods drew a bill, for the amount, on the vendee, and, 
by mistake, extend the time of payment therein, beyond the time agreed by 
the parties, and the Vendee fraudulently seize upon the mistake, and accept 
the bill, to entrap the other party, and secure an advantage to himself, the 
vender may treat the bill as void, and maintain an action for the goods sold. 
Hervey v. Harvey^ |v, 3fe7. 

7. By the law ofjtus state, a debt, due on account, is considered as paid, 
,and the contract exyguished, by taking a negotiable promissory note for the 

amount ; while thencomnion law regards it only as security for an existing 
debt* Newall v. Jfi^^ey, ivui. 249. 

8. Where a (Jlartiier, authorized, on dissolution of the copartnership, to 
adjust the afikirs,%ve a l^te, in the name of the firm, in settlement of an 
outstanding apc^At, this, not being binding upon the other members, is not a 
discharge of thJSlaim. Perrtn v. Keene^ xix. 355. 

9. Where a^negotiable security was taken, as collateral to an existing 
debt, the holder may endeavor to make it available, by suit ; and, failing of 
success, he may resort to his original security, without restoring that, w'hich 
was taken as collateral. Comstock v. Smilh^ xxiii. 202. 
See Agbnct, VII. 7. 

(f ) When not valid. 

1. The attestation of a note, not before ¥ritnes8ed, by a person, not present 
at the signing, is a material alteration, and destroys its validity. Brackett v. 
Mountfarty xi. 115. 

2. If a note be altered in a material part, without consent of the party to 
be affected by such alteration, it is void, as to such party ; and this principle 
applies to an alteration, changing the liability of an indorser from a condi- 
tional to an absolute engagement, or to a waiver of demand or notice. Far- 
mer v. Rand^ xiv. 225. Buck v. Appleton^ xiv. 284. Smith v. Frye^ xiv. 
457. Farmer v. Rand^ xvi. 453. 

3. The holder of a bill has no right to make an alteration in it, to correct a 
mistake, unless to make the instrument conform to what all parties to it 
agreed or intended it should have been. Hervey v. Harvey^ xv. 357. 

4. The alteration of an accepted bill, by the holder, in the date, shortening 
the time of payment, without the knowledge of the acceptor, destroys the bill. 
Hervey v, Harvey^ xv. 357. 


Digitized by 



5. If an alteratioii be made in a note« hy one of the piomisers, he cannot 
allege that it was fraudulent Hughes ▼. LM^idd^ xnii. 400. • 

6. The alteration of a note from / promise, to we pronuse, is not a material . 
alteration, and does not avoid a note. Eddy v. Bond^ xix. 461. 

7. Nor does the addition of the name of an attesting witness to a note, un* 
less done fraudulently. Biddy ▼. Bond^ xnc. 461. 

8. An alteration of a note, not apparent on inspection, and made before 
delivery, while in the hands of one of the promisers, will be presumed to 
have bet^n made by their consent Eddy v. Bond^ xix. 461. Gooch ▼. 
Bryant, xiii. 386. 

9. After a note had been signed by one promisor, the attestation, generally, 
by a witness, not then present, on seeing anodier promisor affix his signature, 
if done inadvertently, does not impair the liability of the first promisor. Rol- 
Km V. Bartlett, xx. 319. 

10. Where a memorandum was written at the bo^m of a note, when it 
was made, that the note was not to be collected, until' a person named should 
take it up himself, as the maker had paid for doing so, such memorandum is a 
part of the contract, not repugnant, nor immaterial, and cannot be taken from 
the note, by the payee or indorsee, without rendering it void. Johnson v. 
Heaganj xxiii. 329. 

11. The adding of a date to an indorsement of partial payment, cm a note, 
is not an alteration of the instrument, and does not affect its validity. Howe 
V. Thompson, xi. 152. 

See LoRD^s Day, 1. 

(g) Notes payable in specific articles. 

1. Where a note was given, payable in specific articles, on a day certain, 
the creditor has the right to appoint the place. And, if it be in the alternative 
to deliver one article at one place, or another at a different place, at the op* 
tion of the debtor, he should give the creditor seasonable notice of his elec- 
tion. Aldrich v. Alhee, i. 120. 

2. Where a note, pa3rable in specific articles, is given to a creditor, living 
out of the United States, the debtor is not absolved from the necessity of 
ascertaining from him, where he will receive them. Bii^y v. WkOney^ y. 

3. A note, payable in wares of a particular trade, must be understood to 
mean, such articles as are entire, and of the kind and fashion in ordinary use ; 
and not such as are antiquated or unsaleable. Dennett v. Short, vii. 150. 

4. In an action on a note, payable in lumber, at a certain time and place, 
it is not a sufficient defence, that the defendant had, at the time and place, a 
greater quantity of lumber, than was necessary to pay the note, and that his 
agents, who had the care of it, were instructed, and were ready, to survey off 
and deliver sufficient for that purpose, to the holder of the note, on present- 
ment. The lumber should have been designated, and set apart, so that it 
would vest in the creditor. Wyman v. Winslow, n. 398. 

/ 5. In such action, parol evidence is admissible, to show an agreement of 
^ / the parties, as to the place, where the articles should be delivered. Wyman 
' V. Winslow, XI. 398. 

6. An assignee of a note, payable in specific articles, may recover the 

Digitized by 




omoimt due ^reon, in an action in his own name, if the maker hare made 
an express promise to pay it to him« Smith v. Beny^ xviii. 122. 

7. The amount^ to be recovered, is the value of the specific articles/at Ae 
time and place of delivery. Smith v. Berty^ xvni. 132. 

8. When the intention of the parties, as to the place of delivery, can bo 
understood from the c<»tract, and the circumstances proved, in relaticm to it, 
the delivery should be made at such place, though the occupancy, or the con- 
dition of it, may have been changed. Howard v. Mimer^ xx. SK25. 

9. On a note for the delivery of specific articles, which are ponderous or 
cumbrogs, when the place of delivery is not designated in the note, and it 
cannot be determined from the condition and situaticm of the parties, it is the 
privilege of the creditor to appoint the place of delivery. Howard v. Miner ^ 
XX. 825. 

10. If the debtor be desirous of paying, he should request the creditor to 
appoint the place, or deliver it to him personally, at a proper place. But, if 
Ihe creditor be out of the state, a reasonable effort, to ascertain and give him 
notice, is sufficient And, if the creditor, being notified, neglects to appoint, 
or avoids the notice, the debtor may appoint the place, and deliver the articles 
there. Howard v. Miner^ xx. 325. 

11. On a note, pa3rable in hay, it is sufficient, if the defendant have, at the 
specified time and place, the stipulated quantity and quality, set apart and ap- 
propriated to the payment of the note. Leballister v. Nash^ xxiv. 316. 

12. It is not necessary, that the hay should be weighed and specially turned 
out The quantity may be otherwise ascertained, at the risk o( the debtor, 
and no change of position is necessary, further than to set it apart, so that it 
may be identified, and removed by the owner. Leballister v. Naeh^ xxiv. 



1. Nothing, but pa3ni^ntof a note, will destroy its negotiability; and this 
will not, when made by the last indorser, or, when made by any prior indors- 
er, if the subsequent indorsements are struck out, before it is again put into 
circula^n. Mead v. Smail^ ii. 207. 

2. An executor, under the laws of another state, cannot indorse a note 
payable to his testator, by a citizen of this state, so as to give the indorsee a 
right of action here, in his own name. Steams v. Bumhcan^ v. 261. 

3. A bill of exchange, payable to the order of the drawer, and not indorsed, 
may be assigned, for a valuable consideration, by delivery only, and an action 
will lie, in the name of the drawer, against the acceptor, for the benefit of 
the assignee. Titcomb v. Thomas^ v. 282. 

4. The interest, of one of the several joint assignees of such biU, may be 
transferred to the others, by delivery, for a valuable consideration. Titcomb 
V. Thomas^ v. 282. 

5. The payee of a negotiable note, having indorsed it in blank, and deliver- 
ed it to another, as a pledge for his own debt, has, still, the right to negotiate 
it to a third person ; who may maintain an action upon it, as indorsee, the 
lien of the pledgee being discharged before judgment Fisher v. Bradford^ 
VII. 28. 

6. Where one of two joint promisees, in a negotiable note, sold it, by re- 
qa-8st of the other, but ^e other refused to indorse it, and afterwards, the 

Digitized by 


lis BILLS or EXCHAHGZ AND PBonsionr irOTK9, n. ni. 

seller indorsed it in their joint names ; the purchaser could not maintain an 
action on the note, as indorsee. Lowell v. Reding^ iz. 85. 

7. A promissory note, payable in cash, or specific articles, is not negotiable. 
Matthews v. Houghton^ xi. 977. 

8. A blank indorsement, by the payee of a note, transfers the title to a 
bona fide holder, and it thereupon passes, by delivery, as if it had been made 
payable to bearer ; and the filling up of the blank indorsement is unnecessary. 
McDonald v. BaUey^ xiv. 101. 

9. The words, ** eventually accountable,^ written over the name of the in- 
dorser, do not restrict or qualify the transfer, and need not be noticed, in the 
declaration. McDonald v. Bailey, znr. 101. 

10. An order, negotiable in its form, but drawn for no specific amount, and 
payable upon a contingency, cannot be regarded as negotiable : but, if drawn 
for the whole of a particular fund, it may amount to an assignment. Legro 
y. Staples, xvi. 252. 

11. An indorsement of a note, by a married woman, to whom the note was 
made payable, transfers no property. Savage v. King, xvii. 801. 

12. A sale and delivery of a negotiable note, ¥rithout indorsement by the 
payee, before it b payable, places &e purchaser in no better condition than 
the payee. Savage v. Ki$ig, xni. 801. Colder v. BxUington, xv. 398. 

13. If the payee of a negotiable note give his assent, by his signature, to 
an assignment by the maker, for the benefit of his creditors, wherein provi- 
sion is made for its payment, or of a part of it, the negotiable character of 
the note is not thereby destroyed, though the effect may be, to destroy the 
effect of the signatures to the assignment, unless adopted by the indorsee. 
HiUon V. Southwick, xvii. dOa 

14. The indorsement of a negotiable note, belonging to a bank, by the 
cashier, is, prima facie, evidence of a legal transfer. Farrar v. Gilman, 
XIX. 440. 

15. A note payable to J. M. P. and J. W., who TOre co-partners in the 
purchase and sale of land, was indorsed by one of them, by the partnership 
name of P. & W., by the prior consent of the other who was not then pres- 
ent, and it was held to be a legal indorsement Dmley v. lAitlefield, xxl 
418. f * 

16. A note, negotiable in its form, does not lose that character, in con- 
sequence of the words, ** the contents of this note to be appropriated to the 
pa3rment of R. M. N. S^s. (a third person^s) mortgage, to the payee*' being 
vrritten upon the back thereof. Treat v. Cooper, xxii. 203. 

See Agency, m. 14. 

Assignment, I. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 


1. If the holder of a bill of exchange, who is entitled to an absolute accept- 
ance takes a special and conditional one, he cannot resort to the drawer, but, 
upon failure of the drawee to pay, according to the terms of such condi- 
tional acceptance. Campbell v. Pettengill, vii. 126. 
I 2. A bill of exchange, drawn by one upon himself, is to be regarded as 
/ accepted. Ctmninghm v. Wardwell, xii. 466. 

3. The acceptance of a bill of exchange, by the drawee, is presumptive 
I evidence that he had effects of the drawer in his hands. Kendall v. Galoin, 
' XV. 131. 

See Evidence, VII. (a) 10. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



(a) Whew necessary. 

(b) Bt whom, and how, to be made, or given. 
(e) At what time and place. 

(d) Waiver or modification of, by agreement, or usage. 

(e) Protest. 

(a) When necessary. 

1. A town order, drawn by the selectmen, on the treasurer, must be pre- 
sented to the treasurer for payment, before an action can be sustained on it ; « 
but no notice need be given to the selectmen of non-acceptance, or non-pay- 
ment, by the treasurer. Vomer v. Noblehorough^ ii. 121. 

2. Though the payee of a note indorsed it, merely to give it currency, 
knowing the insolvency of the maker ; this does not excuse a want of de- 
mand and notice. Groton v. DaUheimy vi. 476. 

3. If a bill be drawn, under such circumstances, as might induce the draw- 
er reasonably to expect it would be accepted and paid, he is entitled to notice, 
though he had no funds in the hands of the drawee. Campbell v. Pettengilly 
VII. 126. 

4. No demand is necessary, on a promissory note, payable at a particiJar 
place, whether on demand, or at a specified time ; but, if the maker ^s 
ready to pay, at the time and place specified, that would be matter of defence. 
Bacon v, Dyer^ xii. 19. Remick v. O^Kyle^ xii. 340. McKenney v. Whip- 
pit^ XXI. 98. Gammon v. Everett^ xxv. 66. 

5. Where A. loaned money to B., at the request of the defendant, taking 
B's note for the amount, payable in two years, and the agreement of the (de- 
fendant, on the back of the note, as follows ; " I agree to secure the witHin 
note to A., out of, or with, a piece of land and water privilege, situated," &c. 
this was held to constitute a guaranty, and the defendant not entitled to notice 
of non-payment True v. Harding ^ xii. 193. 

6. If the maker of a check, pa3rable instantly, ha^ no funds, at the time, 
in the bank, upon which it is drawn, this, unexplained, is deemed a fraud ; 
and the holder can sustain an action upon it, without presentment for pay- 
ment, or notice. True v. Thomas^ xvi. 36. 

7. A waiver, by an indorser of a note, of all right to notice, does not ex- 
cuse theTiolder from making a demand upon the maker. Burnham v. Web- •* 
iter, XVII. 50. Drinhcater v. Tebbetts^ xvii. 16. 

8. Ap indorser is always entitled to notice, wl^pther he becomes such for 
value, or for the accommodation of «lnother. Rea v". Porrance^ xviii. 137. 

9. An action may be maintainbd,* op q bank bill, payable.on demand, but ^■ 
having noplace appointed therein for payment,* without k special demand, y ^^ .^^^ 
Bryant v. Damariscoita Bank^ xviii. 240. '* ^ ^ ' ' ^'^Jf^^ 

10. Where ^iptc payable on demand, was indorsed, " accountable, in . ^ ^•t-^'- 
eight months," ftpm the date of the indorsement, and, at the same time, the ' " % ^ ^ *^ 
indorsee gave ^5^^ indorser a bond, not to sue the maker within eight months, 

the indorser was held liable, without demand or notice. BagJcy v. BuzzcU^ 
XIX. 88. 

11. The holder is not excused from making demand, and giving notice, by 
proof, that, at the time of the negotiation of the note, the indorser was mform- 
ed, that the holder should rely upon him for the payment of the note at 
maturity. Davis v. Goweny xw. 447 a 


Digitized by 



12. If the indorser of a note has changed his place of residence, between the 
time of indorsement and the maturity of the note, the holder is excused, from 
giving him notice of its dishonor, only by proof of all reasonable efibrts and 
diligence, to ascertain the new residence of the indorser, and to give him 
such notice. Barker v. Clark^ xx. 156. Clark v. Bigelow^ xvi. 246. 

13. Where a note is indorsed, when overdue, a demand and notice are 
necessary to charge the indorser, though the maker were insolvent, at the 
time of the indorsement, and aAerwards. Gredy v. HutU^ xxi. 455. 

14. A guarantor is generally liable, without denuind or notice, and is, in 
many respects, in the condition of a surety ; and if the debtor was insolvent, 
'when the debt became due, a demand on the debtor, and a notice to the 
guarantor, is not necessary, to charge the latter. Skqfield v. Haley ^ xxii. 
164. Cooper v. Page^ xxiv. 73. 

15. Where the drawer of a bill has no funds in the hands of the drawee, 
a demand and notice need not be proved, unless the drawer had reasonable 
ground to expect the draA would be honored ; of which the burden of proof ' 
is upon the drawer. Bvmham v. Springs xxii. 495. 

16. Where the holder of a note finds the place of business of the indorser 
closed, and the door locked, during business hours, he is excused from further 
exertions to notify him. Howe v. Bradley^ xix. 31. 

17. Where the maker of a note dies, before it becomes payable, a de- 
mand and notice are necessary, even though the indorser knew of the decease 
of the maker, and that his estate was insolvent Gower v. Moore^ xxv. 16. 

See Guaranty, II. 6, 7, 8. 

(b) By ichom^ and how^ to be made^ or given, 

1. A demand upon the maker of a note, by the cashier of a bank, in 
which it had been lefl for collection, will charge the indorser, though the cash- 
ier had not the note with him, at the time ; all the parties residing in the town, 
where the bank was located. Gallagher v. Roberts^ xi. 489. Maine Bank 
V. Smithy XVIII. 99. 

2. Where a bill is lef\ in a bank for collection, though the bank has no 
interest in it, yet, for the purpose of making a demand, and receiving and 
transmitting notices, the bank is to be considered the real holder ; and a notary, 
employed by the cashier of a bank, in such case, has sufficient authority to 
make a demand, and give the notice. Warren v. Gilman^ xvii. 360. Free- 
nuuCs Bank v. Perkins, xviii. 292. 

3. If due notice, of the presentment and non-payment of a bill, be given 
to an indorser, it is not necessary, that he should also be notified, that the 
holder will look to him for payment. Warren v. GUman^ xvii. 360. 

4. A bill was drawn, accepted, and indorsed, at Bangor, where all the par- 
ties resided, and made payable at a bank in Boston, and negotiated to a bank 
in Bangor, arid by them transmitted to a bank in Boston, for collection ; and, 
after presentment there, and refusal, notices were made out, to all the prior 
parties, and transmitted, by mail, to the cashier of the Bangor bank ; and the 
cashier, on the mornmg of their arrival, took them from the post office, and 
directed one to the indorser, in the city, and immediately replaced it in the 
post office ; it was held, that, as the notice came from Boston, this mode of 
transmitting it was sufficient. Warren v. Crilman^ xvii. 360. 

5. But, in such case, where the indorser lived in an adjoining town, and the 
notices were received by the cashier, two hours before the mail closed for 

Digitized by 



such towii) and he did not deposit die notice for the indorser in the post office, 
till after the mail closed for that day, the indorser was discharged from liabil- 
ity. Freeman^s Bank v. Perkint^ xviix. 392. 

6. On a note, signed by the standing committee of a parish, a demand on 
die committee, and notice to the indorser, is sufficient to render him liable ; a 
demand on the treasurer is unnecessary. Ca$co Bank v. Musgey^ xix. 20. 

7. To charge an indorser, it is not necessary, that the notice of the non-pay- 
ment should state the name of the holder, or the place, where the note may be 
found. Howe ▼. Bradley^ xiz. 31. 

8. Where a note ia payable at a future period, with interest annually, and 
the annual interest was not demanded, or notice of non-payment thereof 
given ; if, at the maturity of the note, a demand is duly made, and notice 
given, the indorser is liable for principal and all the interest Hinoe v. Brad* 
lepy XIX. 81. 

9. The holder of a note is required to notify only those indorsers, to whom 
he intends to resort for payment ; and, if an indorser wishes to render his pre- 
ceding indorser liable, he may notify him, for which he has one day, after 
notice to himself. Carter v. Bradley^ xix. 62. Crocker v. Geididl^ xxiil 

10. Where the notioe, dejivered to an indorser, was directed to him, by a 
WTODg surname, it was held good, if he knew thereby, that it was intended for 
him, and, that the note therein d^cribed, was the note in suit, which questions 
were proper for the jury. Carter v. Bradley^ xix. 62. 

. 11. Upon refusal, by a town treasurer, to pay an order, drawn by the 
selectmen upon him, payable on demand, it is not necessary, that it should 
be produced and exhibited ; it b sufficient, if the person, making the demand, 
have it with. him. Pease v. Cornish, xix. 191. 

12. Where the parties to a note live in the same town, a demand on the 
maker, and notice to ^ indorser, through the post office, are not sufficient 
Davis V. Crowen^ xix. 447. Crreen v. Darlings xv. 141. 

13. The general rule, that notice to an indorser, not living in the same 
town with the holder, may be sent by maiL, does not apply to the case of an 
indorser, living in the wilderness, twenty-eight miles from a post office ; in 
such case, notice should be given in person, or by a special messenger. Fish 
V. Jackman^ xix. 467. 

14. To charge a drawer of a bill of exchange, living in a different state, 
from that, in which the demand was made on the acceptor, and, where there 
was a town of the same name, in two states, the direction on the notice, if 
seat by mail, should specify t^ state, as well as the town, in which the draw- 
er resides. Beckivith v. Smithy xxii. 125. 

15. A demand upon the maker of a note, which is obligatory upon him, 
is suffieient, in seference to the liability of an indorser. Bank of Portland 
V. Brawn^ xxii. 295. 

16. Where an incorporated company, by their agent, drew a bill upon 
their treasurer, and indorsed the same, a demand upon him, and his refusal, 

' has the effect, both of demand and notice, to charge the company as indors- 
ers. Commercial Bank v. St. Croix Man. Co. xxiii. 280. 

17. The holder of a note, or bill, may adopt a private conveyance, for 
the transmission of notice to a drawer or indorser ; but, in such case, it is 
nacumbent on him to show, that due diligence was used. Jarvis v. St, Croix 
Man, Co. xxiii. 287. 

, 18. If the holder of a note leave it with a bank, or an individual, residing 

Digitized by 



in a different city or town, as agent, for collecticm, such agent is, for that pur- 
pose, to be considered a party, and is bound only to notify his principal, in 
due season. Crocker v. Getchell^ xxiii. 392. 

19. But, if the Hblder employ an a^nt, whose residence, or place of busi* 
ness, is so distant from that of the parties to the paper, that the transmission of 
notices through him would occamon great and unnecessary delay, it might be 
evidence of want of due diligence, or, of a vesuitious attempt to injure a 
party, throu^ a pretence of using due diligence. Crocker v. Getchelly 
XXIII. 892. 

20. A mistake, in the notice of the dishonor of a bill or note, does not 
render it invalid, if it do not mislead the party notified. Crocker v. Getcbr 
ell^ XXIII. 392. 

21. Where a notice to an indorser is regularly deposited in die post office, 
the risk of delay rests upon the party to be notified. Lord v. Appleton^ xv. 
270. WkiUier v. Graffam, iii. 82. 

22. If the maker of a note die before its maturity, it should be presented, 
for pa3rment, to his personal representative, if there be any. Gower v. 
Moorcj XXV. 16. 

23. A demand of payment cannot be made by letter, through the post 
office, unless by express consent, or some known . usage, regulating the con- 
tract. iVhfUtier v. Graffam^ in. 82. 

24. The transfer, by an indorser, of a previously indorsed and protested 
draf\, by delivery, is equivalent to the drawing of a new draf^ on the accep- 
tor, payable on demand, or at sight ; and it is the duty of the holder, to pre- 
sent it to the acceptor, for payment, within a reasonable time, and, if not 
paid, to give notice to the indorser. Hunt v. Wadleighy xxvi. OTl. 

25. It is not essential to the validity of a notice, that it should be stated 
therein, who was the owner of a bill or note, or, at whose request the notice 
was given. When a notice is signed by a notary public, he is to be presum- 
ed to have been duly authorized, by the holder of the bill or note, whoever 
he may be. Bradley v. Davis^ xxvi. 45. 

See Corporation, in. 11. 

(c) At what time^ and place, 

L If the place of payment is designated, in a memorandum, at the bottom 
of a note, or, if, to the acceptance of a bill, is added a place of payment, 
with the assent of the holder ; a demand should be made, at such place, on 
the day it becomes payable, to bind the indorser. Tuckerman v. Hartwell^ 
in. 147. 

2. Where the residence of the drawer of a bill of exchange is unknown 
to the holder, he ought to inquire, of the other parties to die bill, if their 
residence is known, in order to give notice to the drawer, if possible. Hill 
V. Varrelly iii. 233. 

3. Where a note signed by two, made payable at their dwelling houses, 
was demanded of them, together, at the bam vard of one of them, and no 
objection was made, as to the place of demand, it was held sufficient. Bald' 
win V. Famsworth^ x. 414. 

4. A presentment of a draft, payable at a particular bank, to the cashier, 
at the bank, on the day it became payable, aAer business hours, who refused 
^yment, because the acceptors had provided no funds, was held sufficient. 
Flint V. Rogers^ xv. 67. 

Digitized by 



5. Where the residence of the holder of a bill, and of the party to be 
notified, is in the same town, notice must be given to him, personally, or lei^ 
at his residence, or place of business ; and, in such case, notice given the 
nineteenth day, after receiving information thereof, is too late. Chreen v. Dor- 
lingy XY. 141. 

6. Where a note is payable, at either of the banks in a city or town, the 
holder is not bound to give notice to the maker, at which of the banks the 
note will be presented, when payable. Page v. Web$ter, xv. 249. 

7. A notice, left in the office, and usualplace of business, of the indorser 
of a bill, with a person in charge of the office, is sufficient Lord v. Apple* 
ton, XV. 270. 

8. Where the maker of a note is entitled to grace, the indorser has the 
same privilege. Central Bank v. Allen, xvi. 41. 

9. Where a note is payable at a particular bank, and, before the day of 
payment arrives, that bank has ceased to exist, and another bank occupies 
the same room, a presentment is sufficient, if made at that room. Central 
Bank v. Allen, xvi. 41. 

10. If the maker of a note remove, before it becomes due, and his resi- 
dence cannot be ascertained, by reasonable diligence, a demand, if necessary, 
will be good, if made at his former residence. Central Bank v. Allen, xvi. 

11. Each indorser is entitled to one day, for giving notice to the party 
next liable, and this time is not enlarged, by his receiving notice earlier than 
might, in strictness, have been required. Farm^^k> Rand, xvi. 453. Car- 
ter V. Bradley, xix. 02. Crocker v. Getchell, xxiii. 392. 

12. A demand, made by the payee of a note, upon the maker, at eight 
o'clock in the morning of the day, when it was payable, is not a reasonable 
hour. Lunt v. Adams, xvii. 2i3(). 

13. If a person direct the messej^eflv a bank, to leave his notices at a 
certain place, a notice to him, lefl^L the messenger, at that place, will be 
deemed sufficient, until the directions countermanded Eastern Bank v. 
Brovm, xvii. 356. 

14. When notice to an indorser is to be sent by mail, it should be put into 
the post office, in season for the first mail of the succeeding day. Goodman 
V. Norton, XVII.- 881. BeckwUh v. Smith, xxii. 125. 

15. By Stat 1824, c. 272, a note, left with a bank for collection, is entitled 
to grace, and cannot be demanded, till the last day of grace. Howe v. Brad" 
ley, XIX. 31. 

16. An agent, to whom a note has been transmitted for collection, is not 
entitled to a day, before he is bound to give notice. Fish v. Jackman, xix. 

17. But, he is not obliged to go himself, nor to send a special messenger, to 
advise his principal ; notice, sent by the next mail, after demand, is sufficient 
Fish v. Jackman, xix. 467. Crocker v. Getchell, xxiii. 392. 

18. Where the agent gave notice to his principal, by the next mail after the 
demand, this was due diligence on his part ; and, where the principal re- 
ceived the notice from the agent, on the first day of the month, and sent a 
special messenger to the indorser, who resided forty-eight miles distant, by 
whom it was received on the fourth, the instruction of the judge to the jury, 
that it would be seasonable, if he commenced exertions, on 3ie second, and 
used ordinary diligence in giving notice, was held to be correct Fish v. 
Jackman, xix. 467. 

Digitized by 



19. When die third day of grace fidla on Ae Lord^s day, the maker of a 
note is entitled to only two da3rs grace ; and, in such case, a presentment for 
payment, on the Lord^s day is made too late, to charge an indorser. Homes 
V. Smith, XX. 264. 

20. If a bank, having discounted an indorsed bill, sends it to another bank 
for collection, and that bank sends it to a third, for ^ same purpose, and a 
demand is made <hi the acceptor, through a notary, and a notice and protest is 
sent back to the second bank ; the keeping diem on hand, till the second day 
after the receipt thereof, without forwarding any notice thereof to the indor- 
ser, wiU discharge him from his liability. Northern Bank v. WtUiams^t xxi. 

21. In places, where there are no established business hours, a presentment 
of a note, for payment, may be made at any reasonable hour of the day. 
But a presentment, in such case, a few minutes before twelve o^clock, at night, 
is unavailing, unless there should be a waiver of objection, as to the time, or, 
it should appear, that payment would not have been made upon demand, at a 
reasonable hour. Dana v. Sawyer, zxii. 244. 

22. It is sufficiently early, to charge the indorser of a note, living ii^^ 
another state, if a notice of the dishonor, directed to him, be put into the wM 
office, within a convenient time, after the commencement of business h<£ri9,. 
of the day succeeding that of the dishonor. Chick v. PHUhury, xxiv. 458. 
Beckwith v. Smth, xxii. 125. 

23. Notes, made payable at a particular bank, but not discounted, or left in 
any bank for collection, are not entitled to grace, by stat 1824, c. 272. Buck 
V. Appleton, xiv. 284. 

24. To charge an indorser, a demand must be proved, to have been made 
upon the maker, on the day, when the note falls due. Robinson v. Blen, xx. 

25. Whero the maker of a note ^^ solvent, at its maturity, and so contiun 
ued, for four months after, and then oecame insolvent, a guarantor, to whom 
no notice was given, for four years aftef#ards, was discharged. Ghhe Bank 
V. Small, XXV. 866. 

26. If a note is indorsed, when overdue, a demand, made in a reasonable 
time after indorsement, is sufficient Sanborn v. Southiard, xxv. 409. 

27. If the maker of a note be absent, at the time it falls due, the demand 
of payment should be made at his domicil, if he have any : otherwise, dili- 
gent search for him will be sufficient Whittier v. Graffam, iii. 82. 

28. If notice of non-payment, though left at an improper place, be, in fact, 
received by the indorser, in due time, and so proved, or properly found by 
the jury, the indorser will be charged. Bradley v. Davis, xxvi. 45. 

(d) Waiver, or modification of, by agreement, or usage. 

1. If an indorser of a note has protected himself from eventual loss, by 
taking collateral security from the maker, it is a waiver of his legal right to 
require proof of demand on the maker, and notice to himself. Mead v. 
Small, II. 207. 

2. At the time of the indorsement of a note, then overdue, the indorser 
requested the indorsee, not to call on the maker at present, to which the in« 
dorsee agreed. No demand was made on the maker, till more than six 
months afterwards, and no notice to the indorser, till three months after de« 
mand ; all the parties living in the same county. Held, that the agreement 

Digitized by 


bhuLS ov sxchanqs and promissobt Norasy it. 119 

did not justify so loog a delay, and, that the iodorser was discharged. Lord 
V. Ckadboume^ viu. 196. 

3. A waiver of the rieht to demand and notice may be by parol. It is 
not essential, that it shomd be positive ; it may restdt by implication, fVom 
usage, or from any understanding between the parties, which is of a charac- 
ter to satisfy the mind, that a waiver was intended. FuXUr v. Mclhnald^ 
Till. 213. Drinkwater v. TebbettSy zvii. 16. Lane v. Steward^ xx. 96. 

4. Where the drawer of an order, a month after it had become payable, 
was informed, that it was unpaid, and thereupon took it, in order to obtain 
payment, but afterwards returned it to the holder, saying there should be no 
difficulty about it, and that he would pay it himself, it was held, that if this 
promise was made with a knowledge of all the facts, it was a sufficient waiver 
of notice. Cram v. Sherburne^ xiv. 46. 

5. Where the usage of a bank is so loose and variable, as to have it un* 
certain, whether any nodoe was given to the indorser, at any time or place, 
or put into the post office for him, such indorser is not bound by such usage, 
in doing business with the bank. Thorn v. JRtcf , xv. 268. 

6. Where W. A., the payee of a negotiable note, then payable, indorsed 
it thus, ^*' W. A. holden,^' he was held liable, without demand or notice. Bean 
V. Arnold^ xvi. 251. BagUy v. Bwttell^ xix. 66. Blanehard v. Wood^ 
XXVI. 356. 

7. The words, "we waive all notice on the promiser and indorsers, and " 
guarantee payment at all events, written by an indorser, over his name, are 
a waiver of both demand and notice. Farmer v. Sew<dl^ xvi. 456. 

. 6. If notice, to the indorser of a negotiable note, be expressly waived 
by him, it does not dispense with the necessity of a demand upon the mak^, 
or a waiver of such demand, to charge him. Drinkwater v. TebbetU. xvii. 
16. Bumham v. Webster^ xvii. 50. 

9. Where such note was indorsed, before it was payable, and it was then 
agreed, that the indorsee ^ould forthwith inform the maker, that it was in- 
dorsed to him, and request that payment should be made, when the note 
should become due, and should wait six months, before making costs upon 
the note, which was done, as agreed ; this wna a sufficient waiver of a de- 
mand. Drinkwater v. TebbetlSy xvii. 16. 

10. If the indorser of a note, knowing that no demand has been made 
upon the maker, promise to pay it, he will be presumed to have made ^he 
promise, with a knowledge of his legal rights, and will be liable. But such 
knowledge must be proved ; and cannot be inferred from the fact of the prom- 
ise to pay. Davis v. Gotten, xvii. 367. 

11. Where it is the custom of a bank, not to send notes by their messen- 
ger, when he makes a demand upon a miiker living in the same town, and 
such usage is known to the maker and indorser of a note, a demand is good, 
though the note remains in the bank. Maine Bank v. Smith,^ xviii. 99. 

12. It is not sufficient proof of waiver of a demand on the maker, and 
, notice to the indorser, that he was informed, at the time of the indorsement, 

that the holder relied altogether upon him, for payment of the note, at matu- 
rity. Davis V. Gowen^ xix. 447. 

13. The indorsement, by the payee of a note, " Good M> J. L. or order, 
without notice," does not waive demand upon the maker, ni6r can it be' consid- 
ered a guaranty. Lane v. I^eward^ xx. 96. 

14. A waiver of demand on the maker is established, by proof, that the in- 
dorser, at the time of the indorsement, said, that if the maker did not pay the 

Digitized by 




note at maturity, he would, and that, afler it was oyerdue, he told the liolder, 
that if he would commence a suit against the maker, and could not cottect it, 
he would pay it Laint v. SUwardy xx. d8. 

15. Where the payee writes the words, ** holden, without demand or no- 
tice,^' on the back of a note, and signs it, and another^ person writes his 
name directly below; whether this b to bo considered'^a 'waiver, on the part 
of the latter, may be proved by parol, or inferred from circumstances. 
Titanic Bank v. Johnson^ xxi. 426. 

16. If a note be indorsed, by partners, by the name of their firm, a waiver 
of demand and notice may be made by one of the partners, after the dissolu- 
tion of the partnership, and before the note is pa3rable. Darling v. Marck, 
XXII. 184. 

17. Where the defendant, and several others, signed a paper in a lAmk, 
stipulating, that all notes, to which they were respectively a party, left there 
for collection, should be considered the same as if made payable at that bank, 
and then said, ^^ we further acree, that notices left at the places set against 
our names, shall be considered legal and binding on us ;*^ and no place was 
set against the name of the defendant ; he was held entitled to insist upon 
his legal rights, as indorser, so far as respects the place, to which notice should 
be sent. Smith v. Trickey^ xxiv . 539. 

18. Parol evidence of statements made by the indorser, at the time of the 
indorsement, are admissible, not to vary the effect of the indorsement, but to * 
show a waiver of demand and notice. Sanhom v. Southard, xxv. 409. 

19. If a note is indorsed, for the benefit of the maker, who gives a mort- 
gage to the indorser for his indemnity, but the latter derives no benefit from ^ 
the mortgage, he is not chargeable as indorser, without demand on the maker. 
Maine Scmk v. Smith, xviii. 99. 

20. The insolvency of the acceptor of a bill, or draf\, does not excuse the ^ 
holder for neglect to present it Hunt v. Wadleigh, xxvi. 271. 

21. If the drawer, or indorser, after full knowledge, that it had not been 
duly presented, promise to pay the bill, thb will be a waiver of the laches, 
and he will be bound. But such promise, made in ignorance of the facts, 
will not be binding, or a waiver of the presentment And the burthen of 
proof is upon the plaintiff, that the defendant knew, that he was not regularly 
charged. Hunt v. Wadleigh, xxvi. 271. 

22. Where the payee of a note indorsed it thus : " P. W. holden for the 
within note,'^ he b liable, without demand or notice ; and is not discharged, 
by delay, for a year, to collect the note of the maker. Blanchard v. 
Wood, XXVI. 358. 

(e) .Protest. 

1. In an action upon a foreign bill, the protest is competent evidence, to 
prove presentment of the bill to the acceptor, and non-payment Green v. 
Jackson, xv. 136. 

2. There is no necessity of causing inland negotiable notes to be protested. • 
Gilman v. Lewis, xv. 452. 

3. If a bill be drawn, accepted, and indorsed, by persons residing n this 
state, but made payable at a place within another state, the notarial protest 
is competent evidence, to prove the presentment of the bill, and its non-pay- 
ment. Warren v. Warren, xvi. 259. Clark v. Bigelow, xvi. 246. Free* 
man'^s Bank v. Perkins xviii. 292. Northern Bank v Williams, xxi. 217. 

Digitized by 



4. Tbe protest of a notary public of another state, wherein he states, that 
he sent a notice of the dishonor of a bill to the drawer, on the next day, 
niter a demand and refusal, ** and, by the first practicable mail thereaAer,*^ 
is competent evidence of the facts thus stated. Beekunth v. Si. Croix. Man. 
Ca. XXIII. 284. 

5. The Bevised Statutes, c. 44, ^ 12, making the protest of an inland 
promissory note, evidence of the facts therein stated, applies, as well to pro- 
tests, made before, as aAer, the act went into operation, and is not unconsti- 
toiti(»ial. Fales v. WaditDorth^ xxiii. 553. Homes v. Smithy xvi. 181. 

6. Such protest is not eoncluiive evidence, as to the notice, given to the 
drawer ot indorsefi Bradley v. Dams^ xxvi. 45. 

7. The protest should state, specifically, whether the notice was verbal, or 
written ; and, if written, whether delivered personally, or sent, and, by what 
mode of conveyance, when sent, and to what place addressed. But, if the 
notice be defective, the necessary facts may be supplied, by other proof. 
Bradley v. Davis^ xxvi. 45. 


1. Where a minor purchased lands, and two of his friends gave their notes 
therefor, which the minor promised to sign and pay, when he should be of 
age ; and afWrwards, when of age, by a memorandum on the bottom of the 
note, he acknowledged himself holden as co'Surety ; in an action against him, 
as on an original promise, it was held, that the plaintiff might show by parol 
that the promise was for the defendant's own debt ; and hold him as an origin- 
al promiser. Thompson v. Linscott^ ii. 186. 

2. Where the promisee, in a negotiable note, payable in six months from 
the date, a month after it was given, indorsed it thus : '^ I guaranty the pay- 
ment of the within note, in six months,'^ and sold it ; this was holden to be 
an original undertaking, by which it was the duty of the guarantor, to see 
that it was paid within the time specified. Cohh v. Little^ ii. 261. 

3. If bills or notes are not paid, at a seasonable hour of the day, on which 
Haey fsM due, the acceptor or maker may be sued on that day ; also the indor- 
scr, or drawer, af\er notice given, or duly forwarded. Greely v. Thurston^ 
nr. 479. 

4. The indorser of a bill of exchange is not liable for the costs of a suit 
against the acceptor ; nor, for any commissions, paid on the collection of 
a part of tbe money fr6m him. Bangor Bank v. Hook^ v. 174. 

5. The engagement of the guarantor of a pre-existing debt is, that the 
debt shall be paid, if the creditor shall take the usual legal steps to secure it, 
or to make absolute the liabilitv of the principal debtor. But where, before 
the guaranty was given, the original debt was payable, and absolute, against ' 
all the parties chargeable, and nothing of a preliminary nature remain^^o 
be done, to perfect the rights of the creditor ; demand and notice are not 
necessary to the maintenance of an action against the guarantor. Read v. 
Cutts^ VII. 186. 

6. Where it was the usage of a bank, to suffer the accommodation notes 
of its debtors to remain overdue, the interest being paid in advance, at every 
return of the time of renewal, and one of its former directors, conusant of, and 
acquiring in, this usage, became surety on a note to the bank, which was 
afterwards suffered thus to lie over, for more than two years, until the maker 
became insolvent ; it was held, that this was not such a giving of new credit 


Digitized by 




to the pnncipal, as discharged the surety. Strafford Bank v. Crosby^ ▼iii. 
191. Croshy v. WyatU xxrii. 156. 

7. If the payee of a negotiahle note indorse his name in blank on the back, 
he assumes only the legal liability of an indorser, which cannot be varied by 
parol. FMer v. McDonald, viii. 213. 

8. Where an administrator, in another state, held, in that capacity, a nego- 
tiable note, payable to his intestate, and indorsed by him in blank, it was . 
held, that the administrator might maintain an action upon it, in this state, as 
indorsee, subject to any defence, originally open to the promiser. Barrett r. 
Barrett, viii. 353. 

9. An indorsement, on the back of a note, of the name of the payee, with * 
the words, ^^ without recourse to me,^^ though uncanceled, is no objection to 
a recovery, in an action, in the name of the payee, against the maker. 
Thornton v. Moody, xi. 253. 

10. A promissory note, payable on demand, was signed by the maker, 
and by another, with the words, " surety ninety days, from date,'* at the end 
of his name ; this was held to be a guaranty, that the principal should 
remain of ability to pay the note, during that period ; and, that the liability ' 
of the surety did not extend beyond the ninety days. JJImer v. Reed, xi. 

11. The payee of a note sold it to a bank, and afterwards failed, and 
assigned his property, for the benefit of his creditors. The assignee, who 
was second indorser on the note, commenced an action thereon, when due, 
in the name of the payee, the property and possession of the note being still 
in the bank, but, before trial, he paid the amount, and took it up. Held, that 
the action could not be maintained. Bradford v. Bucknam, xii. 15. 

12. Where a person guarantied the payment of a note out of certain real 
^estate, and, aAer his decease, his heirs, of whom the plaintiff was one, signed 

a writing, not under seal, purporting to release a portion of the estate to one 
of the heirs, but reserving enough to pay the note ; this was not evidence of 
payment of the note, or satisfaction of the liability of the guarantor. True 
V. Harding, xii. 193. 

13. Mere delay, by the payee, after a note falls due, in enforcing pay- 
ment against the principal, without binding hinself to give further time, does 
not discharge a surety. Freeman^s Bank v. Rollins, xiii. 202. Page v. 
Webster, xv. 249. 

14. Where the master of a vessel, in a foreign port, having authority to 
borrow money, to purchase a return cargo, drew a bill of exchange, in his 
own name, for that purpose, on his owners, directing, on the face of the bill, 
that the amount should be charged to the cargo of the vessel ; he was held 
personally liable, as drawer. Snow v. Goodrich, xiv. 235. 

15. No action can be maintained upon an indorsed note, but by one, or 
under the authority of one, having a legal interest in it. Bragg v. Greenleqf, 
XIV. 395w 

16. If a person, who has indorsed a bill to another, shall again corae into 
possession thereof, he is regarded as the bona fide holder, unless the contrary 
appear ; and may maintain an action thereon m his own name. Warren v. 
Gilman, xv. 70. Green v. Jackson, xv. 136. 

17. After an indorser is once made liable, he is not discharged, by mere 
delay, on the part of the holder, to enforce collection against the maker, 
though requested to do so, by the indorser, if the holder do not so bind him- 
self not to sue, that he cannot sustain an action ; nor, by the neglect of Uie 

Digitized by 



holder, to enter an action, commenced by him against the maker, whereby 
property secured on the writ is released. Page v. Webster^ xv. 349. • 
Pierce v. Whitney^ xxii. 113. Lotoney v. Perkam^ xx. 235. Baghy v. 
Buzzell, XIX, 88. 

18. A guaranty of payment of a negotiable note, for debt and costs, 
without demand or notice, renders the indorser liable to the indorsee, for the 
costs of a fruitless suit against the maker, but not for the expense of a pro- 
test. Crilman v. Lewis^ xv. 452. 

19. A town may maintain a suit, as indorsees, upon a note, purchased by 
them, to meet an expected claim upon the town by the payee. Augusta v. 
Leadbetter^ xvi . 45. 

20. If a negotiable note, indorsed in blank by the payee, be lost by the 
indorsee, and he afterwards assign his right thereto to another, the assignee T 
cannot maintain an action, in his own name, upon such lost note. WillU v. ' ^ 
Creseyy xvii. 9. 

21. One party to a negotiable note may, upon request of another party, 
maintain an action thereon, for his benefit. Lewis v. Hodgdon^ xvn. S67. 

22. And the written consent of the indorser, pending the trial, that the suit 
> may be prosecuted, in his name, for the benefit of the indorsee, is a ratifica- 
tion of the previous proceedings. Lexcis v. HodgdoUy xvii. 267. 

23. If a note be made and signed by one, and another, for the same con- 
^deration, afterwards signs the note, and adds after his name the word ** sure- 
tyy'* he is a joint promiser. Hughes v. Littlefield^ xviii. 400. 

24 The indorser of a note is not discharged, by the holder's releasing the 
property of the maker, attached, and taking a statute bond, though done for a 
valuable consideration from the principal debtor : — 

iVar, by the refusal of thfe holder to receive, from the maker, a conveyance 
of sufficient real estate, for security, and to give a day of payment Lane v. 
Steward, XX. 98. 

25. The defendant transmitted a draft to the plaintiff, his creditor, for col- 
lection, with a request, that the proceeds, when paid, should be passed to his 
credit. The plaintiff indorsed and negotiated the draft, and gave the defend- 
ant credit for the proceeds. Subsequently, the draft was protested, and the 
plaintiff took it up, as indorser, paying costs of protest, and damage ; and ho 
was held entitled to recover the same of the defendant. Croodnow v. Howe, 
XI. 164. 

26. Where a note is signed by three persons, for a joint debt, each is prin- 
cipal for one third, and co-surety for the other two thirds. Goodall v. Went' 
worth, XX. 322. 

27. Where a note was made by a principal and sureties, payable to a per- 
son, from whom it was expected the money might be received therefor, but 
who declined to furnish it, and the sureties consented, that the note might be 
delivered to any one, who would advance the money, it is available against 
&em, for the benefit of such person, in an action against them, in the name of 
the payee, with his consent. Starrett v. Barber, xx. 457. 

28. In an action, by an indorsee, against an indorser, of a note, where it 
docs not appear, but that the plaintiff has a right of action against both maker 
and indorser, on the note, he cannot, without returning the note to the indorser, k/ 
rescind the contract, and recover, upon the money counts, the consideration ^ 
paid to the indorser, for the notes, by proof, that it was obtained from the 
maker by fraud and misrepresentation. Cushman v. Marshall, xxi. 122. 

29. Where the defendant was liable to the plaintiff, on a note, and, by an 

Digitized by 



agreement between them, the defendant was discharged from hia liability, by 
giving the plaintiff an order, drawn and accepted by ^hers, and guarantied l^ 
Sie defendant, he was held liable for the amount of the order, though greater 
than his origuml liability on the note. Skofield y. Haley ^ xxii. 164. 

30. Where it appears, upon the face of a promissory note, that one of the 
makers is principal, and the others are sureties, and one of the latter, having 
paid the note, claims contribution of the other, th^ character, in which the 
parties signed, will be presumed to be correctly exhibited by it, subject to be 
controled by proof. Crosby v. Wyait^ xxin. 156. 

31. Where a note, payable on demand, was indorsed and guarantied, and 
I the maker was solvent, for two years afterwards, and the holder made no 
' effort to collect it, and gave no notice to the guarantor, till after the maker 
* had failed, the guarantor is discharged. Gamage v. HutchmM^ xxiii. 565. 

32. To hold a guarantor liable, afler his discharge, by the negligence of 
. the holder, there must be proved an acknowledgment of liability, or promise 
' of payment, with full knowledge of want of due diligence on the part of the 

holder. Gamage v. Hutchina^ xxui. 565. 

33. Where the plaintiff received post notes, payable at a future day, and 
in another state, and agreed to account for them, on the defendant's note to 
the plaintiff, if collected ; if payment should be refused, to return them to 
the defendant ; it wa^i the duty of the plaintiff to present them seasonably, 
for payment, and, if not paid, to retur^^iem to uie defendant, Medomak 
Bank v. Curtis^ xxiv. 36. 

34. Where one borrowed money, for which he engaged to give a note 
signed by himself and his father, and, in the interim, gave his own note for the 
amount ; and the joint note was accordingly signed, but the son was killed, 
while on his way to carry it to the lender, and it afterwards fell into the hands 
of the father, who destroyed it, never having been delivered ; no action was 
maintainable against the father, on the note, nor for the money. Leigh v. 
Horsum^ ly. 28, 

35. The indorser is not discharged, in consequence of an agreement, by the 
holder of the note, to give time to the maker, unless such agreement was for 
a valuable consideration. Bagley v. Buzzclli xix. 66. 

See EviPENCE, m. (a) 43. 

GuABANTT, I, 3, 4. 5» in. 1, 2, 3. 


(a) Whkr, and by whom, an action is m aintaiitable. 

(b) Wher iubject to equities betweer other parties. 

(c) Depbncbb. 

(a) TFAen, and by trAom, an action is maintainable. 

1. A note, payable on demand, with interest af\or four months, with the 
words, on demand, erased, but still legible, was held not payable until the 
lapse of four months. Hobart v. Dodge^ x. 156. 

2. But, a note, payable on demand, with interest after six months, is duo 
. presently ; the six months apply to the interest, and not to the principal* Rice 

v. West, XI. 323. 

3. A second assignee of a note, not negotiable, cannot maintain an action 
on a special promise, made to the first assignee, but must resort to his action 
on the note. Hatch v. Spearin, xi. 354. 

Digitized by 



4. The defendants gave their note to the plaintiff^ payable, ^ as soon as 
his contract for making the Canada road should be completed, to the acceptance 
of the agent, appointed by the governor and council, to inspect said road.^^ 
The contract was, to make the road around the base of Bald mountain. The 
road was made over the mountain, and was accepted by the agent of the 
state. Held, that an action on the note was maintainable. Shed v. MiUer^ 
xn. 318. 

5. The drawer of an inland bill of exchange, and the indorser of a note, 
as well as the acceptor and maker, are entitled to three days grace, by stat j 
1824, c. 272, when the bill or note has been discounted W a bank, or left 
therein for collection. Pickard v. VaUniine^ xiii. 412. McDonald v. Smithy 
XIV. 99. 

6. But notes, payable at a particular bank, and not discounted, nor left | 
in a bank for collection, are not entitled to grace. Buck v. Appleion^ xiv. 

7. No action can be maintained on a promissory note, but by one, or under 
authority of one having a legal interest therein. Bragg r. Oreenleaf^ xiv. 
395. Bradford v. Bucknam, xu. 15. Ballard v. G^^embush, xxiv. 336. 

8. After demand and refusal of payment, and after notice thereof has been 
put into the poet of&ce, directed to the indorser, living in another town, an 
action may be commenced against the indorser, the same day, though he 
would not receive the notice till the next day. Flint v. Rogers^ xv. 67. 

' 9. Though the holder of a bill is entitled to an action against the drawer or 
indoreer, immediately after due diligence has been used to give them notice, 
yet, a suit against them cannot be maintained, if commenced before enough 
has be^ci done, to render them absolutely liable. Green v. Darlings xv. 139. 
Limt V. Adorns^ xvii. 230. 

10. Where the maker of a note is entitled to grace, an indorser has the I 
same privilege. Central Bank v. AUen^ xvi. 41. 

11. Grace is not allowed upon bills and notes, by stat 1824, c. 272, unless 
they are discounted, or left for collection, in a bai^, before they are payable, ' 
hy their terms. Rea v Darrance^ xviii. 137. 

12. By stat. 1824, c. 272, a note discounted at a bank, or left therein for 
collection, cannot be demanded, till the last day of grace. Howe v. Bradley^ 
XIX. 31. 

13. The contract of guaranty is, in its nature, special, and not negotiable, 
and no suit can be maintained thereon, except by the party, with whom it is 
made. Springer v. Hutchinson^ xix. 359. 

14. Where a note is payable in several annual payments, the cause of ac- 
tion accrues for the first payment, as soon as it is payable. Bumham v. 
Broi0ti, XXIII. 400. 

15. Annual interest cannot be recovered, by a separate action for it, after 
the principal has become due, interest being merely incidental to a debt, and / 
not part of it. Howe v. Bradley^ xix. 31. 

See Actions, d&c., I. 3, 5, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 26, 28. IL 3. 
Land Agent, 1. 
Pleading, I. (a) 1 — 5. 

(b) When subject to equities between other parties, 
1. The right of the maker of a note, negotiated when overdue, to set up, 

Digitized by 



as a defence against the indorsee, transactions between himself and the payee, 
before its transfer, extends to every thing, which would have been a good 
defence against the payee. Thicker v. Smt/A, iv. 415. Barrett v. Barritt^ 
VIII. 353. HaUh v. Dennis, x. 244. Lane v. Padelfardj xiv. 94. 

2. Where the indorsee of a note has a lien upon only a part of the amount, 
as collateral security for money due from the payee, a debt due from the 
payee tp the maker may be set off against the residue, upon motion. Moody 
V. Towle, Y. 415. 

8. Where the maker of a note, payable m specific articles, performed ser- 
vices for the holder, which he accepted in payment ; and afterwards sold the 
note to a third person ; it was held, that such services would still constitute 
a good defence to an action on the note. Joy v. Foss, viii. 455. 

4. In an action, by an indorsee of a dishonored bill or drail, the defendant 
mi^ avail himself of demands against the indorser, accrubg prior to the 
transfer, by filing them in set-off. Shirley v. Todd, ix. 83. Barney v. Nor^ 
ton, XI. 850. 

5. In an action, by an indorsee against the maker on a note, negotiated 
before it was payable, and without any notice of a defence, in parent of a 
pre-existing debt, want, or failure, of consideration, or other existmg equities 
between the origin al p arties, cannot avail in defence. Homes v. Smyth, xvi. 
177. Norton v. TVaite, xx. 175. 

6. If a note has been indorsed and transferred, bona fide, before its ma^ 
turity, as collateral security for a demand, less than its nominal value, a su^^ 
sequent payment, by the maker, to the payee, cannot be shown, in an ajlpro^ 
by the indorsee agamst the maker, to reduce the amount of the judgmem, to 
the sum, actually due to the indorsee. Crotoen v. Wentworth, xvii. 66. 

7. If the payee of a negotiable note, then overdue, having knowledge, that 
it was in the hands of an indorsee, for a valuable consideration, promises to 
pay it, he cannot introduce, in set-off, claims arising af^r that time. Lemis 
v. Hodgdon, xvii. 267. 

8. The indorsee of a note, when overdue, acquires only such rights, as the 
payee could then have enforced ; and, if he obtain judgment thereon against the 
maker, and the latter has obtained judgment against the indorser of such note, 
on a note given to him, before the indorsement, the latter judgment may be set 
off against the former. Bumham v. Tucker, xvin. 179. 

9. When a suit is brought by the holder of a note, indorsed overdue, 
against the maker, he is not entitled to his counter claims against the indorser, 
unless they are filed in set-off. Wood v. Warren, xix. 23. 

10. In an action, by the indorsee of a note, indorsed before its maturity, 
" without recourse," it was held, that a verdict for the plaintiff should not be 
set aside, for misdirection in the instructions to the jury, where the judge 
charged them to find for the defendants, if there was fraud between the 
plaintiff and the defendants, inducing the latter to make the purchase, and 
give the note in question ; or if there was fraud between the vendors and the 
defendants, in obtaining the notes, of which the plaintiff was conusant ; or, 
if there was a mistake, which went to the essence of the contract, and the 
plaintiff procured the contract to be made, or was instrumental in procuring 
It. Herrick v. Johnson, xxiii. 188. 

11. Where a note was given to A., as agent of B., and afterwards transfer- 
red to B., by indorsement, the maker was held entitled to make the same 
defence to an action by B., as indorsee, as if the note had been originally 
made payable to him. T%omdike v. Godfrey, iii. 429. ^ 

Digitized by 



(c) Defences. 

1. Wher^^ note is given for the purchase money of lands, conveyed to 
the maker by deed of warranty, he cannot set up partial failure of title to the 
lands, in defence to an action on the note ; his remedy is on the covenants in 
his deed. Lloyd v. Jewell^ i. 352. 

2. And, where the deed contained an express stipulation, that, upon a 
breach of any covenant therein, the damages might be payable, in cash, to 
the amount received in money, and the residue, by delivering up such of the 
grantee^s notes, as should remain unpaid ; in an action upon one of the notes, 
some having been paid, and others still due, the defendant was not permitted 
to show a breach in the covenant of seizin, as to a parcel of the land, to the 
value of the note declared on. Lloyd v. Jewell^ i. 352. 

8. In an action, in the name of the payee of a note, not negotiable, brought 
for the benefit of an assignee, the maker may set up, in defence, a payment 
to the pipmisce, though the assignment, and notice thereof to the maker, 
were made and given before the note was due, if he proves that the assign- 
ment was without consideration and void ; though he had been previously 
summoned, as trustee of the payee, and had been discharged, upon disdoeure 
of the mere fact of the assignment. Dunning v. Sayward^ i. 366. 

4. A judgment, in another state, against one of two joint promisers, without 
satisfaction, is no bar to an action, in this state, against the other, upon the 
original note. Dennett v. Chick^ ii. 491. 

5. A covenant, never to sue one of two or more joint obligors or premiers, 
cannot be pleaded as a release, except, in a suit between the same debtor and 
cre4itor ; nothing short of full payment, by one of several joint debtors,' or a 

«r«^JB|ease under seal, can discharge the other debtors. Walker v. McCulloch^ 
>^. 421. 

6. iy||KK>t cmnpetent, for the maker of a negotiable note, to set up in de- 
fenc9rusury in the transfer, from the payee to the indorsee. Clapp v. Han- 
son^ XV. 345. 

7. In an action between the original parties, upon a note, given as the con- 
sidera^^ for a bond, for the conveyance of land, at a future day, the maker 
was permitted to prove, in defence, that the contract was made, and tlie note 
given, in consequence of the'Talse and fraudulent representations of the plain- 
tiff, in relation to the timber upon the land ; though the defendant had not 
offered to return the bond, till the time of the trial, long aAer the expiration 
of the time for the conveyance, and had not shown, that he remained ignorant 
of the fraud. Wyman v. Heald^ xvii. 329. 

8. A note, given under a threat of a lawful imprisonment, on a warrant, for 
an assault and battery, in satisfkction for the injury, as determined by arbitra- 
tors mutually chosen, cannot be avoided for duress. Eddy v. Herrin^ xvii. 

9. But, if the note had been obtained from threats of an unlawful impris- 
onment, it might have been avoided. Eddy v. Herrin^ xvii. 338. 

10. Where a note was given, in consideration of a bond, c<»iditioned for 
tMe "conveyance of certain real estate, on payment of the note, in two y®ars, 
when it became payable, and with a furtlier provision, that the maker of the 
note should occupy the premises during the two years, free from rent, except- 
ing the payment of interest on his note ; and if, af\er the expiration of said 
term, the obligor should make his election^ to enter upon the obligee, and 
eject him from the premises, then the obligee should be entitled to have his 

' note given up, and that the bond should be given up, ** said note and bond 

Digitized by 



being both void from the taking of such poasession^^; and the obligee entered, 
and occupied, for three years, paying no rent, nor any part of the note, when 
the obligor entered, and ejected the obligee, and afterwards a suit was brou^t 
upon the note ; it was held, that the action was not maintainable^ McKun y. 
Page^ xviiu 140. 

11. It is no defence to an action on a note, secured by mortgage, that the 
mortgagee has entered for foreclosure, and that the premises are of more, value 
than the debt secured thereby ; unless the time of redemption has expired. 
Tortland Bank v. Fox^ xix. 99. 

12. Want of consideration is no defence to an action, upon a bill or note, 
negotiated and indorsed, before it was payable, if the plaintiff, or any in- 
termediate party, between him and the defendant, took the bill or note bona 

JidCy and upon a valuable consideration. Haskell v. Whitmore^ xix. 102. 

13. AAer a bill had been accepted, and afterwards protested, for non-pay- 
ment, and notice given to the drawer and indorsers, a conditional /igreeroent, 
by the holder, not performed, to give time to the acceptor, on his payment 
of part, does not discharge them from their liability. Lovmey v. Perhamj 
XX. 235. Pierce v. Whitney, xxii. 113. Page v. Webster, xv. 249. 

14. That the defendant was an Indian of the Penobscot tribe, is not a good 
defence to an action upon a note, given by him. But proof of even a ^ight 
imposition, in obtaining the note, would prevent a recovery. JtfiurcA.v. To^ 
mer, xxi. 535. 

15. Where a note was given by A. to the plaintiff, as the consideration for the 
conveyance of certain land, procured by the fraud of the plaintiff; which note 
was put in suit, and settled by A., by payment of a part in cash, and his ac- 
ceptance for the balance of a draft, indorsed, at his request, by the defendants ; 
and afterwards the plaintiff had sued and recovered judgment against A., upon 
the draft, he then knowing all the facts ; and having conveyed a part of the 
land to othera, and makine no conveyance, nor offer to convey, to the plain- 
tiff; in an action against tne defendants as indorsere, it was held, that the fraud 
of the plaintiff in the sale, furnished no good defence. Thayer v. Jewett, 
XXII. 19. 

16. A bill of exchange, note, or order, payable to a particular person, 
having been paid by one, who was bound to pay it, without the nght to 
call upon another party for repayment, is functus officio, and ceases to have 
a legal existence. Ballard v. Greenhush, xxiv. 336. 

17. But this does not apply to a bank note, which is not a omtract 
with any particular person, but with any one, who may become the bearer of 
it. Ballard v. Greenhush, xxiv. 336. 

18. The pendency of a suit by the maker of a note, against the payee, for 
• damages for his fraudulent representations, in effecting the sale of lands, for 

which the note was given, does not preclude the maker from the right to de- 
fend an action on the note, on the ground of such fraud in the sale. Whit* 
tier V. Vase, xvi. 403. 

19. It is no defence to an action on a note, payable to a person named, or 
bearer, that the payee had delivered it to the plaintiff, as collateral security for 
his own debt, and had afterwards paid his own debt to the plaintiff, and so, 
was entitled to have the note returned to him, before the commencement of 
the suit. Sibley v. Robinson, xxiii. 70. 

20. It is no good defence to an action, by an administrator, on a promissory 
note, payable to the intestate, that the defendant ^ve to the intestate, a deed 
of his farm, as collateral security for the debt, under an agreement, that the 

Digitized by 



btter ^KMikl give him a bond, for the reoonveyance of the farm, when the 
Bote should be paid ; but the bond was never executed. Woodman v. Wood" 
man^ iii. 350. 

21. Where a joint note was made by four, and, before its maturity, two 
of the promisers pay " two thirds of the within note, principal and interest, 
being tfieir part ;" and it is thus indorsed thereon, they are not thereby dis- 
charged from payment of the residue. Cobum v. Ware^ xxv. 330. 

22. Where the holder of a note receives from the maker a smaller note, 
and agrees, that, if the latter be paid at maturity, he shall be discharged from 
his liability on the other, this does not, of itself, discharge him from such 
liability, but, for a defence to an action on the larger note, he must prove, that 
payment of the smaller note was made or tendered at the time it became 
payable, or was prevented by the wrong of the holder. Jenness v. Lane^ 
XXVI. 475. 

See Assumpsit, V. (b) 2. 
Lord's Day, 1. 


1. If one of two joint promisers in a note, have neither domicil nor pro- 
perty in this state, a separate action may be maintained here, against the 
others. Dennett v. Ckick^ ii. 191. 

2. An action may be maintained, in the came of an agent or treasurer of 
a private association, on a note given to him, in that capacity, the addition 
of his character, in the note, being but descriplio personae. Clap v. Day, 
II. 305. 

3. Where the declaration, on a bill of exchange, contains an averment 
of due notice of the dishonor of a bill, legal notice must be proved. Evi- 
dence, that the holder had used due diligence to give notice, without effect, 
will not support the declaration. Hill v. Varrelly in. 233. 

4. Where a man and woman cohabit, as husband and wife, under a pre- 
tended marriage, he having a former wife living, and a note is given to her, 
by her name, as his wife, an action cannot be sustained thereon, in his name. 
Cram v. Bumham^ v. 213. 

6. The objection to the sufficiency of an indorsement of a note by an 
executor, appointed under the laws of another state, may be taken, under the 
general issue, in nn action by the indorsee against the maker. Steams v. 
nurnkam, v. 261. 

6. A count on a note, payable on the occurrence of a certain event, or in 
a reasoTuible time^ is not supported by evidence of a note, payable only on 
the occurrence of the event ; though it is proved, that the contingency is ren- 
dered impossible, by the misconduct of the defendant. The plaintiff should 
have alleged the facts, tending to deprive the defendant of any excuse for not 
paying the money. Hilt v. Campbell^ vi. 109. 

7. Where the payee of a joint and several note, signed by three, has sued 
one of the makers, alone, and recovered judgment ; he cannot afterwards 
maintain a joint action against the other two. Bangor Bank v. Treaty n. 

8. Parol evidence is admissible, to prove, that the right to demand and 
notice was waived by the indorser of a note. Fuller v. McDonald^ viii. 
213. Drinkwater v. Tehbetts, xvii. 16. Sanborn v. Southard, xxv. 409. 

9. Where a new promise is relied on, in answer to a plea of the statute 


Digitized by 



of limitatioDS, the declaration is founded on the original cause o( action, and 
the new promise is set forth in the replication, <Nr addifced in CTidence. Bmr» 
rett Y. Barrett^ viii. 3&3. _ 

10. In an action, by the indorsee of a dishonored bill, or draft, against the 
acceptor, the declarations of the indorser, rq^Se while the interest was in him, 
are admissible in evidence, for the d^fehdant Shirley v. Todd^ ix. 68. 
Hatch V. Dennifj x. 244. Merrick v. Parknum^ xriii. 407. 

11. In an action, by the payee, against the drawer oi a bill, not accepted, 
the declarations of the drawee, made at the time of presenting the bill, that he 
had no funds of the drawer in his hands, are not admissible in eridence ; the 
drawee, in such case, not being agent of the' drawer. Corle v. White^ zx. 

12. Where, by stat 1824, c. 254, § 2, the selectmen, cleric, and treas- 
urer, of a town, are the trustees of the ministerial and school funds of such 
town, an action on a note, given to the treasurer of such funds, may be sus- 
tained by the corporate name, of ^^ Trustees of the ministerial and school 
funds in the town of ,^^ without setting forth the names, or official charac- 
ters, of the individuals, composing the board. Levant v. Parks^ x. 441. 

18. In an action on a note, brought by an indorsee, who had taken it 
when overdue, where the defendant filed, in set-off, his account against the 
payee, up to the time of the indorsement, the indorsee was permitted to pro- 
duce proof of the payee^s account against the defendant, or other repelling 
evidence. Barney v. Norton^ xi. 350. 

14. In an action on a note, payable in specific articles, parol evidence is 
admissible, to show an agreement of the parties, as to the place, where the 
articles were to be delivered. Wyman v. Winslow^ xi. 898. 

15. In an action on a note, writings connected therewith, by direct refer- 
ence, or necessary implication, are admissible in evidence, in the defence, as 
parts of the same transaction. DavUn v. HtZZ, xi. 484. 

16. An action on a note should be in the name, or under the authority of, 
some one having a legal interest in the note. Bradford v. Bucknam^ xii. 15. 

17. In an action on a note, payable at a time and place certain, no aver- 
ment or proof of demand is necessary, on the part of the plaintiff; but, if 
the maker was ready to pay, at the time and place specified, that would be 
matter of defence. Bacon v. Dyer^ xii. 19. Remtck v. O^Kyle^ xii. 340. 
McKenney v. Whipple, xxi. 98. 

18. A. purchased a quantity of goods of B., and gave his bill on C, which 
was protested for non-acceptance. In an action by B. against C, to recover 
the price, A. was held to be incompetent, as a witness for B., to prove, that, 
in making the purchase, he acted as agent for C. Hewitt v. Levering, xii. 

19. In an action on a bill of exchange, absolute in its terms, parol evi« 
dence is inadmissible, that it was to be payable on a contingency. Cunning* 
ham V. Wardwell, xii. 466. 

20. Where A. sold a cargo of lumber to B., taking his bill for the amount, 
evidence was inadmissible, that, about ten days before the bill was drawn. A, 
agreed to sell him a cargo of lumber for shipment, and to take the sea risk 
upon himself. Cunningham v. Wardwell, xii. 466. 

21. In a several action, by the payee, against a surety, on a note, the prin- 
cipal is a competent witness ; and his testimony is admissible, to prove facts, 
happening affer its execution, tending to discharge the surety. Freeman^% 
Bank v. Rollins, xiii. 202. 

Digitized by 



22. The receipt of interest, for a stipulated time, in adrance, from the prin- 
cipal, by the payee, after the note is payable, is not eridence of an agreement 
to give farther credih thereon ; and does not discharge the surety. Freeman^s 
Bunk V. RoUint^ xiii. 203. 

23. The alteration of a figure, in the date of a note, prored only by inspec- 
, tion, b not, ci itself, evidence, that the alteration was made after the signature 

and delivery. Chock v. Bryant^ xiii. 386. 

24. A party to a negotiable note is inadmissible, as a witness, to prove it to 
have been originally void. Lane v. Padelford^ xrv. 94. Buck v. Appleion^ 
XIV. 284. (Aapp V. Hamon^ xv. 845. 

25. A payee of a negotiable note, indorsed after its maturity, is a compe- 
tent witness to prove, that after it had been made for a different purpose, it 
was received, aind indcnrsed by him, as collateml security for the payment of 
another note. Lane v. Padelfard^ xiv. 94. 

26. In such case, no action can be maintained, on the collateral note, but 
by the holder of the principal one. Lane v. Padelford^ xiv. 94. 

27. The possession of a note, payable to a third person, and not indorsed, 
the declaration of the holder that it was his property, and the leaving it with t 
an attorney for collection, as such, in the absence of opposing proof, are evi- J 
dence of an equitable assignment of the note to him. Harrinum v. Hill, xiv. 

28. The words, ** we waive demand on the promisor, and notice to our- 
selves," written over the names of several indorsers, and appearing on the 
note, when offered in evidence to the jury, are, prima facie, evidence of a 
waiver of demand and notice. Farmer v. Rand, xrv. 225. Buck v. Apple* 
ton, XIV. 284. 

29. Where a guaranty is written over the name of a payee of a note, in* 
dorsed in hlank, without his consent, parol evidence is inadmissible, to charge 
him as indorser, whilst the written guaranty remains uncanceled ; nor can 
the note be given in evidence under the money counts. Smith v. Frye, xiv. 

80. In an action upon a foreign bill, the protest is competent evidence, to 
prove presentment, and non-payment. Green v. Jackson, xv. 186. 

31. Where the evidence, to prove notice to an indorser, is too loose, defi- 
cient, and uncertain, to authorize a jury to find in the affirmative, a judge of 
the common pleas may rightly decide, that the action is not maintained, with- 
out submitting the cause to a jury. Thorn v. Rice, xv. 268. 

32. Where a negotiable note has been assigned, but not indorsed, proof 
Aat there was no consideration, or that the note was fraudulently obtained by 
the payee, is admissible. Colder v. Billington, xv. 398. 

33. Where the maker of a witnessed promissory note, payable in 1811, to 
a corporation, added to the bottom of the note, in 1828, the words, " I hereby 
renew the above promise," and subscribed his name, attested by a subscribing 
witness ; in an action, brought in 1836, it was held, that proof of the new 
promise, by the subscribing witness'^thereto, %as sufficient to authorize mad- 
mg the note to the jury \ that parol evidence was^^nadmissible to prove, that 
^ note was made to show an apparent amount of funds, to enable the cor- 
poration to obtain a grant from the state, under an agreement, that it should 
be given up, after payment of interest for a few years ; or to show, that the 
new promise was made on a condition, which had not been complied with. 
Warren Academy v. Starrett, xv. 443. 

34. A guaranty of payment, upon a negotiable note, over the signature of 

Digitized by 



the indorser, is, prima facie^ evidence, that it was written at the time of Ae 
indorsement. Gilman v. Lewis ^ xv. 452. 

35. Where a note is made payable at a particular place, the reply, which 
is made, on presentment there, for payment, is admissible in evidence. Cen- 
tral Bank^ v. Allen^ xvi. 41. 

36. So, replies, to inquiries made for the maker's place of abode, are ad- 
missible in evidence. Central Bank v. Allen^ xvi. 41. Barker v. Clark^ 
XX. 156. 

37. The ciMitents of a notice, sent to the indorser of a note, informing him 
of a demand on the maker, and non-payment, may be given in evidence, 
without notice to produce the original paper. Central Bank v. Allen^ xvi. 

38. In an action on a note, or inland bill of exchange, the original records 
of a deceased notary are admissible in evidence, to prove demand and notice ; 
but such records are not the only evidence ; the facta may be proved by 
otlier testimony. And the records are not required to be under seal. Homes 
V. Smithy XVI. 181. 

39. A copy of the record of a deceased notary, duly attested by the clerk 
of the courts, in the county, where such record is filed, is admissible in evi- 
dence, under stat. 1821, c. 101. And such copy need not be under seal; 
though copies furnished by the notary are required to be under seal. Homes 
V. Smith.xvi. 181. 

40. In actions on bills, drawn in this state, payable in another state, or on 
drawees residing there, the notarial protest is admissible in evidence. Cktrk 
V. Bigelowy XVI. 246. Warren v. Warren^ xvi. 259. 

'41. In an action on a note, given as the consideration of an assignment of 
the bond of a third person, for the conveyance of land, on payment of a cer- 
tain sum, within a certain time, the defendant may give in evidence, that the 
contract was fraudulent, without returning the bond, if the time had expired 
before he had knowledge of the fraud. Winslow v. Bailey y xvi. 319. 

42. The declarations of the payee of a negotiable note, made while he 
retains it in his possession, are admissible in evidence, though he may have 
previously written thereon his indorsement to a third person, in whose name the 
action is brought. Whittier v. Vose^ xvi. 403. 

43. If an indorser, " without recourse," at the time of making the indorse- 
ment, for a valuable consideration, paid him by a third person, gives a written 
contract, to guaranty to the holders the eventual payment of the note, and 
explains his meaning, by saying, that he holds himself bound to pay the exe- 
cution, which may be recovered tliereon, during the life of the executicHQ, he 
has an interest to lessen the amount to be recovered, in an action on the note, 
and so, is not a competent witness, to prove a partial failure of consideration. 
Paine v. Hussey^ xvii. 274. 

44. The transfer of a negotiable note, by indorsement, is proved by evi- 
dence of the handwriting of the indorser, without calling liim. Smith v. 
Prescott, xvii. 277. 

45. After proof of such transfer, the burden of proof is upon the defend- 
ant, if he would prove a payment to the indorser, prior to the transfer; and 
the burden of proof is not changed, by forbearance of the indorsee, for three 
years, to put the note in suit. Smith v. Prescott^ xvii. 277. 

46. Where a note is made payable to two or more persons, not partners, by 
tlieir surnames only, it is not necessary, to establish their identity, to prove 

Digitized by 



bat they were partners at the date of the note. Rogers v. Reed^ xviii. 

• 47. In on action by the indorsee, against the administrator of the indorser, 
on a note, given as consideration for a bond for the conveyance of land, upon 
payment of the note, where a partial payment had been made subsequent to 
the indorsement, and the death of the indorser, it was held, that the payee 
was not a competent witness for the defendant. Weston v. Highly xviii. 

48. A note, given in payment for goods purchased, may be given in evi- 
dence under the money counts. ' Fairbanks v. Stanley^ xviii. 296. 

49. If a mortgage be assigned, in writing, by the indorser of a note, as 
collatcFal security for the payment thereof, parol evidence is inadmissible to 
show, that the indorser was discharged from his liability upon the note, by 
such assignment. Maine Bank v. Smithy xviii. 99. 

50. The payee of a negotiable note, who has indorsed it, without recourse, 
is a competent witness for the indorsee, in an action against the maker, to 
prove, that a material alteration of the note was made by the maker, at the 
time of signing, and before delivery. Abbott v. Mitchell^ xviii. 354. 

51. If two of three joint piomisers of a note are sued, without assigning 
any cause for omitting the third, the objection can be taken only in abate- 
ment. Hughes V. Littlefieldy xviii. 400. ./ 

52. Where the maker of a note calls the indorser, as a witness, he thereby 
waives his right to give in evidence his declarations, made whilst he held the 

^ note. MenHck v. rarkman^ xviii. 407. 

53. Proof, that a note was indorsed to a cashier, and by him handed to a 
notary for protest, is sufficient to establish the fact, that it was either negotia- 
ted to, or left in, a bank, for collection, so as to entitle the maker to grace. 
Bumham v. Webster ^ xix. 232. i 

• 54. To charge an indorser, the day, on which notice was placed in the 

• post office, addressed to him, should be made certain. March v. Garland^ 
XX. 24. 

55. Where the person, by whom notice of non-payment of a draft was 
sent to the indorser, was uncertain, as to which of two places it was directed, 
but it appeared, that on the day notice was sent, he was correctly informed as 

• • to the residence of the indorser ; and, that the indorser had said, he knew, or 

had notice, that the draft had come back ; it was held, that the jury were 
justified in finding, that the notice had been properly directed. March v. 
Garlandy xx. 24. 

56. Where a note was indors^, " Good to J. L., or order, without notice," 
^ and a payment was indorsed thereon, on the day of its maturity, this might 

authorize the conclusion, that it was duly presented. Lane v. Steward^ xx. 

57. The declaration of the holder of a note, to the indorser, that he has 
^ called on the maker, the day the note became due, and that he refused to 

nufcke payment, is not evidence for him, though it was not denied by the in- 
dorser. Robinson v. Blen^ xx. 109. 

58. Where a party to a^note has changed his place of residence, previous 
to its maturity, inquiries, niade by the holder, at his |ormer place of residence, 

• and the answers thereto, may be given in evidence, to show diligence on his 
.part Barker v. Clark^ xx. 156. 

59. The possession of a bill of exchange, by one who negotiates it, is 
presumptive evidence of ownership. Lowney v. Perhamy xx. 235. 

Digitized by 



60. To maintain an action upon an order, payable, ** when yon receive 
your payments from W. on his house,^ and accepted in the partnerriup 
name of the defendants, the plaintiff must prore, that one, at least, of the de> « 
fendants, accepted the order, in the partnership name ; that they were part* 
ners in the business, to which it related ; and that they had received their 
payments from W., on his house. He4uL v. Sleeper^ xz. 314. 

61. Where the subscribing witness to a note testifies to his own signature, 
but can recollect nothing more, and fails to prove its execution by the maker, ^ 
other evidence of the genuineness of the maker's signature is admissible. 
Crabtree v. Clark^ xx. 837. 

62. If a note is written, partly by one hand and partly by another, with 
different ink, this does not furnish prima facte evidence, that the nole was , 
fraudulently altered. Crabtree v. Clark^ xx. 837. 

63. The presumption, that the plaintiff, sueing as indorsee, became holder 
of the note, before its maturity, may be so rebutted, by proof, that the indors- 
er was m possession of it, until after it became payable, and was protested, 
claiming to own it, that the admissions of such indorser are competent evi- 
dence. Norton v. Heywood^ xx. 359. 

64. In this state, it is sufficient to maintain an action on an indorsed note, 
if the nominal plaintiff has assented to the suit, and it has been authorized by 
the party in interest ^Gage v. Johnson^ xx. 437. /Sibley v. Robinson^ xxiii. 

66. Where there was a written waiver of demand and notice, by the first 
indorser, and the second indorser wrote his name directly under the name of ^ 
the first ; whether the second indorser thereby intended to waive ^demand 
and notice, may be proved by parol, or inferred from circumstances. Ticonic 
Bank v. Johnson^ xxi. 426. 

66. In an action, by the payee of a drafl, against the drawer, where it ap* 
peared, that the plaintiff was one of two assignees of the effects of the ac- 
ceptor, it was held, that the burden of proof was on the defendant to show, ^ 
that the plaintiff, as assignee, had funds in his hands, for the payment of the 
draft, wholly or in part. Fiske v. Stevens^ xxi. 457. 

67. Where the plaintiff declares on a bill, as indorsed to certain co-partners, 
by their partnership name, and by them, by the name of their firm, to himself, 
and, on trial, produces the bill, and proves the indorsement to have been made « 
by one of the partners, by the name of the firm, thb is, prima fade^ evi- 
dence of that indorsement, and of the plaintiff's title, through them, to the bilL 
Davenport v. Baois^ xxii. 24. 

68. To charge the drawer of a bill of exchange, residing in a difierent 
state, proof, that notice of dishonor was put into the post office, at nine o'clock 

in the forenoon of the day, after demand, merely, without showing that it was * 
in season to be carried by the mail of that day, is not sufficient. Beckwith 
V. Smithj XXII. 125. 

69. If it appears on the face of a promissory note, that it was given " for 
value received,*' this is, />rtma /ocie, evidence of a sufficient considerati<m. * 
Clark V. Peabody^ xxii. 500. 

70. No action can be maintained by the indorsee of a note, unless it was 
indorsed by the payee, before the commencement of the suit Clark v. Pea* * 
body^ xxii. 500. 

71. Parol testimony is inadmissible, to vary the legal eflfect of an indorse- « 
ment in blank upon a bill or note. Crocker v. Gelchell^ xxiii. 392^ 

72. Where a note is made payable, '' fnxn the avails of the logs bought of 

Digitized by 



IL, when Iheie is a sale made,^* parol evideDce is inadmiflwbley in an action 
on the note, that, when the note was given, it was the intention of the parties, 
that if it turned out, on manufacturing the logs, that there was a toted loss 
thereof to the owner, the note was not to be paid. Sears v. Wright^ xxiv. 

73. In an action against an indorser, upon a note, it is competent f<Nr him 
to prove by parol, that his indorsement thereon was procured by the &lse pre* 
tences of the plaintiff, and this will be a good defence. Larrabee v. Fair* 
hanks^ xxiY. 363. 

74. If a note, payable to a third person or bearer, has been transferred to 
the defendant, and by him to the plaintiff, without indorsement, and the plain* 
tiff afterwards procured the defendant to indorse it, by sayinff it was mere 
matter of form, and that he would not be liable, testimony of these facts is 
admissible, to show that the indorsement was made without consideration. 
Larrahee v. Fairbanks^ xxiv. 363. ' 

75. In an action in the name of the payee, on a note not negotiable, for 
the benefit of an assignee, the declarations and admissions of the payee, made 
subsequent to the assignment, are inadmissible. Matlhewi v. Houghton^ z. 
420. J 

76. Tlie declarations of the payee of a note, made after he had parted 
with his intei4st in it, and when another person held it for value, are not ad- 
missible in. evidence, in an action by an indorsee. Russell v. Doyle* xv. 
112. / 

71. The possessicm of a negotiable note, indorsed, is, jirima facie^ evidence 
of ownership. Lord v. Apj^eton^ xv. 270. 

78. On a guaranty, that a draft shall be eventually paid, it is sufficient to 
prove the in»>lvency of the parties, and, that it could not be collected. Am- 
iress v. Faiten^ xz. 28. 

79. To render one liable, as indorser, who had not been duly notified, 
' upon his promise to pay the bill, the plaintiff must prove, affirmatively, that 

he knew he had not been regulariy charged. Ihmt v. Wadleigk, xxti. 

80. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a note is presumed to have 
been made, at the time it bears date. Emery v, Vitud^ xxvi. 295. 

See Evidence, HI. (a) 24, 29. IV. 20. V. 10, 11, 12. VI. (h) 
7, 8. Vn. (c) 6, 7, 9, 13, 17, 18. 
jPV^AOiNo, I. (a) 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Vin. DAMAGES, i: . ^ 

1. The damages, on al>rote8ted bill of exchange, are not given, as a li- 
quidated arbitrary mulct, %ut as a compensation to the holder, for the expense 
of remitting the money to the place, where the bill ought to have been paid. 
Therefrre, if the holder receive part of the money from the acceptor, this 
diminishes the damages, pro rata. Bangor Bank v. Hook^ v. 174. 

2. Where the master of a vessel, in a foreign port, having* authority to 
borrow money, to purchase a return cargo,, drew a bill of exchange, in his 
own name, for that purpose, on his owners, directing, on the face of the bill, 
ihat the amount tbeipBof should be charged to the cargo of the vessel ; which 
order was accepted,. but protested for ncm-payment; the drawer was held 
liable for the full amount of the bill, with interest, and ten per cent, as dam* 
ages. Snow v. Goodrich^ xiv. 235. 

Digitized by 



3. The sum, which the indorsee of a note is entitled to recover from the 
indorser, is the amount of the money paid for the note, with interest. French 
V. Grindle, xv. 163. 

4. If a negotiable note has been indorsed, and transferred, ftotw ^de, be- 
fore its maturit} , as collateral security for a sum, less than its nominal value, 
payment, afterwards, by the maker to the payee, cannot be given in evidence, 
to reduce the amount to be recovered, in an action by the indorsee, against the 
maker. Oowen v. Wentworth^ xvii. 66. 

5. In an action, on a note for specific articles, the amount of damages to be 
recovered is, the value of the articles, at the time and pkice of delivery, and 
interest thereafter. Smith v. Berry ^ xviii. 128. 

6. Deunages on a protested draft cannot be recovered, against the drawer 
or indorser, when the principal has been paid, by a levy of an execution re- 
covered in a suit, in favor of the holder, against the acceptor. Warren v. 
Coombs, XX. 139. 

7. A, transmitted a draft to B. for collection, the proceeds to be passed to 
the credit of A. — B. indorsed and sold the draft ; and it was afterwards pro- 
tested for non-pa3rment, and he took it up, as indorser, paying costs of pro- 
test and damages ; and was held entitled to recover the whole amount, from 
A. Goodnow v. Howe, xx. 164. 

8. If one, in consideration of fifteen dollars, guarantees payment of the 
note of a third person, for three hundred dollars, and the contract of guaranty 
is broken, the damages to be recovered, are, the amount due on the note. 
Cooper V. Page, xxrv. 73. 




As to Probate bonds. See Probate Bonds. 

As to bonds given for debtors^ liberties. See Poor Debtors. 

As to Bail bonds. See Bail. 

As to bonds in cases of Bastardy, See Bastardy, I. 1, 2, 9, 13, 14. 


1. In a hearing in chancery, upon a penal bond, it is incumbent upon the 
plaintiff to show, how much is due in equity and good conscience. Gowen v. 
rfowell, II. 13. 

2. A bond may be assigned, by delivery only, for a full and valuable con- 
sideration. Vose V. Handy, ii. 322. 

3. The liability of a surety, on a bond given by a deputy to the sheriff, 
for his official good conduct, extends to faults committed after, as well as be- 
fore, the death of the surety. Green v. Young, viii. 14. 

4. A bond is not void, for ease and favor, unless given to the sheriff, or 
arresting officer. Kavamigh v. Saunders, viii. 422. 

5. A bond being in suit, and the writ in the hands of the officer, but not 
served, the obligor went to the attorney, who commenced the suit, to pay him. 

Digitized by 


BOMPy I. 187 

die money. The attorney stated the amount of the debt due, and wrote a 
receipt therefor, upon the back of the bond, and the obligor paid over the 
money. While counting the money, the attorney remarked that the costs had 
been accidentally omitted ; but the obligor refused to pay them, and went 
away, canying the bond, and leaving the money, which the attorney informed 
him, he should not receive. Held, that the bond was not discharged. SteW' 
ard V. Riggs^ ix. 51. SUuHsrd v. Riggs^ z. 467. 

6. If a man execute a bond, for fear of unlawful imprisonment, he may 
avoid it on the ground of duress. Whitejield v. Longfellow^ xiii. 146. 

7. The word, hondy does not necessarily imply an instrument under seal, 
or with a penalty, or forfeiture. Stone v. Bradburp^ xiv. 185. 

8. The giving a bond, for the conveyance of land to a person, on the per- 
formance of certain OHHlitions, does not disqualify the obligor fVom conveying 
die same land to another. Eaton v. Emerson^ xiv. 385. 

9. If a bond be written, to be signed by several, and be executed by one, 
with a condition annexed to his act, that it shall not be binding upon him, 
unless signed by the others, named as obligors ; he will not be bound, unless 
they iedso sign ; otherwise, if he sign without annexing such condition. Ha$» 
kins v. Lombard^ xvi. 140. 

10. Where there has been a payment, and acceptance of the full amount, 
equitably due on a bond, before a suit thereon for the penalty, the action can- 
not be maintained. Grimes v. Tmmer^ xvi. 853. 

11. If a replevin bond, made to one obligee, be altered, after its execution, 
and made payable to another, without authority from the parties, it avoids 
the bond. DoTbier v. Norton^ xvii. 307. 

12. In actions upon bonds, with a penalty, with a condition, which provides 
for the performance of some covenant or agreement, by stat. 1830, c. 463, 
the jury are to assess the damages ; but, where the condition of the bond is 
such, that it is to be void, upon the performance of some act or duty, the 
damages are to be assessed by the court, by stat. 1821, c. 50. Hathaway 
V. Crosby^ xvii. 448. 

13. Bonds given in common form, under poor debtor acts, are of the latter 
description, unless in cases, where the acts direct the damages to be assessed 
by the jury. Hathaway v. Crosby^ xvii. 448. 

14. Two or more obligors may adopt the same seal to a bond, and it has 
the same effect, as if each had affixed a separate seal. Bank of Cumberland 
V. Bugbecy xix. 27. 

15. The recital in a bond, with fewer seals than signatures, that it was 
sealed with our seals, is a plain and mcuaifest adoption of one of the seals by 
each. Bank of Cumberland v. Bugbee^ xix. 27. 

16. No private suit can be maintained on an official bond, made to the 
state, or its treasurer, without its consent. And, when the statute, giving 
consent, prescibes the remedy, that remedy must be pursued. White^ TreasV^ 
v. Wilkins, xxiv. 299. 

17. The stat 1842, c. 19, does not take away the right to institute and 
maintain more than one suit upon such bond. WhitCj Treas*r^ v. WiUdns^ 
XMV. 299. 

18. It would seem, from the balance of authorities, that an immaterial 
alteration, made by an obligee, avoids a bond. Barrett v. Tliomdike^ i. 73. 

19. A bcmd, for the conveyance of real estate, is a mere personal contract, 


Digitized by 


138 BOND, I. II. 

and conveys a personal ri^t, and no estate in the land. Shaw v. WitCy x. 


See Bail, 1. 

Contract, IV. 4. 
Ck)STS, IIL 17. 


1. Where one gave a bond to a town, conditioned for the support of its 
paupers, for five years, and to save the town harmless from all damages, 
oosts, and expenses, on account of the liability of the town to be called upon 
to provide for poor persons ; and, after the expiration of the five years, a 
suit was lupought against the town for supplies, furnished by another town, to 
a pauper, partly before, and partly after, the expiration of the term, in which 
suits the defendant prevailed ; it was held, that the obligor was liaUe for his 
proportional part of the expense of defending this suit Saco v. Osgood^ v. 

2. The taking oi the prc^rty of <me, by a cor(»er, on a writ againrt 
another, is a malfeasance in office, and constitutes a breach of his official 
bond. Harris v. Hanson^ xi. 241. 

8. A cleriL of the courts, required, by statute, to render to the county 
treasurer, on the first Wednesday of January, annually, an account of aU 
moneys received b^ him, durins the year, by virtue of his office, and, ^ afler 
deducting $1000, if he should have received so much, to pay over one half 
of the residue, ^kcJ*^ and having received $927,61, from the first Wednes- 
day of January to the 23d of October, when he ceased to hold the office, 
was held not liable on his bond, to pay over, until the amount exceeded $1000, 
though the fractional part of the $1000, exceeded the fractional part of the 
year. Harris v. Dinsmore^ xi. 865. 

4. Where A. covenanted with B. and C, to convey to them certain tim- 
ber lands, on payment of a stipulated sum of money, and their notes for a 
certain amount, payable at a future day, with satisfactory security by mort- 
gage, and B. tendered tiie money and notes, signed by himself, in the part- 
nership name of B. and C, and demanded a deed ; it appearing, that B. and 
C. were partners in the business of purchasing real estate, the tender was 
held sufficient ; and that, as A. refused to convey, they were not bound to 
tender a mortgage of the land. Smith v. Jones^ xii. 332. 

5. It being further stipulated, in the bond, that the money, notes, and deed, 
were to be deposited with W. T. P. of Bangor, until report be made by a 
surveyor, as to the quantity of timber on said land, it was held, that a tender 
of them to A., in Portland, was not sufficient Smith v. Jones^ xii. 382. 

6. Where an act is to be performed, upon reasonable demand^ the party, 
upon whom the demand is made, is entitled to such time, as is necessary, to 
prepare himself to perform the act Sewall v. WUkins^ xiv. 168. 

7. Where it was necessary for the obligor, upon whom the demand was 
made, to travel to a place, two hundred miles distant, in the months of March 
and April, to procure and make papers, before the act could be performed, 
he was held entitled to a longer time than ten days. SewaU v. Wilkins^ 
xrv. 168. 

8. If one be bound to convey land, the title to be a good and sufficient 
deed, a good title, by deed, should be conveyed. Brown v. Gammon^ xrv. 

Digitized by 


BOND} n« IM 

9. Where, by mutnal corenants, one party agreed to convey land to the 
odier, by good and sufficient deed, on payment of a certain sum, at a certain 
time and place, and the other agreed, then and there to pay the sitpulated 
sum ; and both parties met at the time and place, and the one demandad a 
deed, but tendered no money, and the other said, he was willing to give a 
deed, but made no tender of it, and had no title to the land, but could have a 
title from the owner of the land, on payment of the money, it was held, that 
no action could be maintained on the bond. Broum v. Gammon^ xiv. 276. 
Drummond v. ChmrckUl^ xtii. 825. 

10. Where a bond is conditioned for the conveyance of land, within four 
months from a day fixed, provided, the obligees pay their indorsed notes, and 
drafts, payable to their own order, in four months from date, according to 
their tenor, and, provided also, they pay, or secure to be paid, a further simi, 
in four equal annual payments ; payment, or unconditional tender of payment, 
of the notes and drafk, is a condition precedent to the right of the obligees to 
maintain an action on the bond. Wimlow v. Capdandy xv. 276. 

11. If the terms of the condition be, that payment shall be made, by good 
notes, secured by mortgage on the premises, the notes must be good without 
the mortgage, and the mortgage is to be additional security. Wimlow v. 
Copdand^ xv. 276. 

12. Where one piurty, by writing, under seal, agreed to make a certain dis- 
count on demands, not then payable, if the other party would, by a certain 
time, give good and reasonable security for the payment of the balance, an 
agreement, made by respcmsible persons, with the oMigee to pay the sums due 
to the obligors, and so transferred, that it may be enforced by the obligors, in 
the name of the obligees, is a substantial compliance, by the obligees, with the 
agreement Haskins v. Lombard^ xvi. 140. 

13. If a covenant be by several with one, if the interest be separate, and 
the performance cannot be made jointly, the covenant must be regarded as 
several, unless the intention of the parties appear, that each should be bound 
for the performance of the other. Haskins v. Lombard^ xvi. 140. 

14. Where two defendants, having received payment for a tract of land, 
gave a bond to the plaintiff, conditioned that they should, ^^ in a reasonable 
time, after request, make and execute to the plaintiff, or his assigns, a good 
and sufficient deed, to convey the title to said premises,^' a request for the 
deed may be good, without the producticm of the bond, at the time, and the 
obligors are bound, both, to make and execute the deed, though the title be in 
but one. Hill v. Hohart^ xvi. 164. 

15. If a bond be for the conveyance of the land, or estate, or for a title to 
It, performance can be made, only by the conveyance of a good title. But, 
when it stipulates only for a deed, or conveyance, by a deed described, per- 
formance is made, by giving such a deed, or conveyance, as the bond de- 
scribes, however defective tl^ title may bo. Hill v. Hohartj xvi. 164. 

16« A contract to make and execute a ^ood and sufficient deed, to ccmvey 
the title, is not performed, imless a good title to the land passes by the deed. 
Hm V. HoharU xvi. 164. 

17. A bond, that the obligor shall pay a certain note, given by the obligee 
to a third person, according to the tenor thereof, and providing, that the bond 
shall be void, if the obligor shall pay the note, on reasonable demand therefor, 
is not broken, if the note be unpaid, for six months, afler it becomes payable, 
unless payment has been demanded of the obligor. Gammon v. Dow^ xvi. 

Digitized by 


140 BOND, U. 

18. Where the condition oi a bond was, that the obligor should cut down 
the wasteway of his mill dam, twenty inches below the top of the then wasle* 
way, and should draw down the water, and keep the water drawn down, twen- 
ty ijiches below the top of the existing wasteway, from the first day of June 
to the first day of October, it was held, that, if the wasteway was kept down^ 
twenty inches lower than it was, when the bond was made, the conditioa 
was complied with, though the surface of the water was less than twen^ 
inches, lower than in the former wasteway. Quinby y. Sprague^ xvu. 226. 

19. In a suit upon a bond, where the acts to be dcHie by the parties, re- 
spectively, were to be concurrent, the plaintifi* cannot maintain an action, 
without proving a tender on his part, or, unless it is expressly waived by the 
defendant, or excused by his disability. Drununond v. ChurckUly xvii. d25. 

20. Where the penal part of a bond, signed by six obligors, is joint, in its 
terms, and the condition recites the several agreement of each, to secure a 
certain portion of a specified sum, by certain notes, to be further secured by 
a mortgage on a township, and concludes, ^' if we shall well and truly ke^ 
and perform our said several agreements, then this obligation is to be void, as 
to each one, so performing, otherwise, to remain in full force^*; it is the j^nl 
bond of all the obligors. Clcark v. Winslow^ xvii. 349. 

21. Under the poor debtor acts of 1835, c. 195, and 1836, c. 245, in de- 
termining, when the six months expire, the day of the date of the bond must 
be excluded. Moore v. Bond^ xvui. 142. 

22. If the defendant, in replevin, recovers judgment for costs of suit, and 
the plaintifiT neglects payment, it is a breach of the condition of the replevin 
bond, and an action may be maintained upon it, without first making a de- 
mand, or sueing out execution on that jiidgment. Cook v. Lotkrop^ xvm 

23. In an action upon a poor debtor^s bond, the adjudicaticm of the justices, 
that the debtor, having disclosed sufficient, in their opinion, to pay the debt, 
is not bound to answer further ; and, having ofiered the property disclosed, 
is entitled to his discharge, under stat. 1839, c. 412, § 2, is no defence to 
the action. Stone v. TtUoriy xix. 265. 

24. Where the defendant had given a bond, to convey land to the plaintiff, 
on certain conditions, and the plaintiff had agreed to build a dam on said 
tract, and all moneys, expended by them, for the defendant, to go towards 
payment for the land, and the plaintiff had not complied with the conditiims 
of their bond, they were not permitted to recover for building the dam. 
Littlefield v. WinsloWy xix. 394. 

25. The term, mone}^ expended, does not embrace claims for services per* 
formed, or moneys expended previous to the date of the agreement, in which 
it is used. LittUfield v. Winshwy xix. 394. 

26. In the construction of contracts, the language used must be limited, by 
the subject matter. Littlefield v. Winalow^ xix. 394. 

27. Unless the principal is surrendered by his bail, in pursuance of stat 
1836, c. 210, the bail are not discharged, ft is not enough, that he is tak- 
en m custody by the sheriff. Corson v. Tattle^ xix. 409. 

28. A bond to convey, by deed of release and quitclaim, all the obligor's 
right, title and interest, in and to, certain property, and, in the mean time, 
suffer and permit the obligee, personally to occupy and improve the property, 
is fulfilled, by giving a deed, in the terms of tfie bond, thou^ the obligee 
might have been ousted by an elder and better tide. SawteUe v. Fike^ xx. 169. 

29. No action can be maintained against the sureties, on an official bond 

Digitized by 


BOWB, II. UI. 141 

of tbe cashier c^ a bank, where the breaches aaaigped are all for unfidthAil* 
ness in office, after a re-appointment, and after giving, and acceptance of, a 
new bond. Frankfort Bank y. Johuony zxiii. 322. 

30. Where lands were conveyed, in trust, that the grantee will appropriate 
the proceeds of sale thereof in a certain manner ; uid, afterwards, another 
grantor conve}^ the same, and other lands, to the same grantee, who gives 
back to him a bond, to account to him for the proceeds of all the sales, in a 
manner different from that required by the first conveyance ; the grantee is 
not relieved from the duty, undertaken by him in the bond, by reason of 
claims of those interested in the trust, upon which the first conveyance was 
made. Hussey v. Dole^ xxrv. 20. 

31. Where, upon the dissolution of a partnership, between the plaintiff and 
one of the defendants, the defendants gave the plaintiff a bond, to pay all 
debts due from the company, and save and keep him harmless and indemni- 
fied, from all his liabilities for the company, ^* as named in a certain agree- 
ment*' between the partners, it was held, that a note, signed by the defend- 
ants, as principals, and the plaintiff as surety, given after the date of the 
agreement, but before the execution of the bond, for one of the demands, 
specified in the agreement, was within the condition of the bond. Jepson v. 
flott, xxnr. 422. 

32. If the plaintiff in replevin become nonsuit, his failure, to return the 
property replevied, is no breach of the replevin bond, unless the defendant 
nave judgment for a return. SmaUwood v. Norton^ zx. 83. 

33. So, if the plaintiff in replevin fails to enter his action. Pettygrave v. 
flbyt, XI. 66. 

34. An official bond, given for official good conduct, is not f\ilfilled, by a 
faithfU accounting for moneys, to the amount of the penalty ; but stands 
good as a security for defalcations to that amoimt. Potter v. Titconib^ vii. 

35. Where, by the conditions of a bond, certain acts are to be performed, 
simultaneously, the obligee cannot maintain an action thereon, without per- 
forming, or offering to perform, the stipulations, on his part to be performed. 
Bdbh V. Kennedy^ xix. 267. 

36. Where the condition of a bond is, that, if the wife of the obligee 
should survive him, she shall enjoy one fifth part of the produce of a certain 
farm, ** also the privilege of keeping one cow and one pair of sheep," and 
furnishing her with the back room and bed room adjoining, with the use of the 
kitchen, together with a sufficient quantity of firewood, cut in suitable len^s, 
for her fire, sufficient for her use, during her natural life," she is not entitled 
to hay or firewood, to be by her carried away from the farm, and disposed of 
at her pleasure. Luques v. Thompaan^ xrvi. 514 

See CoLLECTOB, 4. 

Condition, L 7, 9, 11, 13. 


1. In debt on a bond, conditioned to submit to arbitration a dispute, re- 
specting a division line between the lands of the parties, it is not a good plea 
in bar, that the arbitrator established the line wholly on the defendant's land. 
White V. Dickinson^ iv. 280. 

2. In an action on the official bond of a collector of taxes, where the point in 
issue was, whether the money collected had been paid over to the treasurer. 

Digitized by 


143 BOND, ni. 

die treasurer, being released by the town, was held to be a competent witness, 
to disprove the payment Alna y. Clough^ yni. 884. 

8. A judgment against a constable, in an action of assumpsit, declaring for 
money had and received, or on account annexed to a writ, is not sufficient 
evidence, to support an action on his official bond. Bailey v. BtUterfield^ 
xiy. 112. 

4. Parol evidence is admissible, to prove, that, in a certain description of 
contracts, any instrument in writing is ccmsidered a bond by the parties. 
Stone V. Bradbury^ xiv. 185. 

5. Proof, that, after the execution of a poor debtor^s bond, the principal was 
wholly deprived of his reason, and thus remained, till aAer the time limited in 
the bond, for taking the oath, is no valid defence to an action on the bond. 
Htukell V. Green^ xv. 33. 

6. In an action on a bond, ccmditioned, that the oblijzor will purchase a 
quantity of timber land, testimony, that the land was of tnffing value, com- 
pared with the price contracted to be paid, b inadmissible in evidence, unless 
accompained with evidence, that the obligee knew the facts, or made fraudu* 
lent representations, respecting it Robinson v. Heardy xv. 296. 

7. In such action, a paper of the same date, not under seal, signed by the 
obligee, having a reference to certificates, to be furnished by him, respecting 
the timber upon the land, is inadmissiUe in evidence. B^hinaon v. aeard^ 
XV. 296. 

8. If a bond, for the conveyance of land, be assigned by the obligee, and 
the obligor, upon the back of the bond, agree, under his hand and seied, with 
the assignee, by name, to extend the time of performance, limited in the con* 
dition of the bond ; an action on the bond cannot be supported by the assignee, 
in his own name. Cole v. BodJUh^ xvii. 310. 

9. The bond, given b^ one, committed for non-payment of taxes, to pro- 
cure his discharge from miprisonment, by stat 1835, c. 195, if made to " A. 
B., Treasurer, or his successor,^^ must be sued in the name of the original 
obligee, though his term of office has expired. HoxU v. Weaion^ xix. 322. 

10. In a suit upon a replevin bond, where the plaintiff has become non- 
suit, evidence is madmissible, in reduction of damages, to prove, that the 
property was in the plaintiff. Smallwood v. iVbrton, xx. 83. 

11. In an action upon a poor debtor^s bond, bearing the same date with 
the return of the officer, who made the arrest on the execution, parol testi- 
mony is inadmissible, to prove that the bond was executed at an earlier or 
later day than its date. Titcomb v. Keene xx. 381. Cwhman v. Waile^ 
XXI. 540. 

12. Since the stat 1836, c. 212, a bond, given by a collector to the treas* 
urer of a city, or his successor, though good at common law, is not a statute 
bond, and an action thereon can be maintained, only in the name of the origin- 
al obligee. Lord v. Lancey^ xxi. 468. 

13. Since the Revised Statutes, c. 104, ^ 13, the pendency of one suit, 
upon the official bond of a sheriff, is no cause of abatement of another suit, 
commenced subsequently, for the benefit of a different claimant, whether the 
bond was made before, or after, the Revised Statutes were in force. White 
V. WilHns, XXIV. 299. 

14. The stat 1842, c. 19, does not take away the right to institute more 
than one suit upon such bond, and, as it affects the remedy only, is not un- 
constitutional. White V. Wiikinsy xxiv. 299. 

15. To sustain an action, on a sherifi^^s or constable^s official bond, the 

Digitized by 


BOHB, HI* -» BOOMS. 143 

plaintiff must producoy in evidenoe, a judgment against the officer, founded 
directly upon his official delinquency. Btdle^ y. BuUerfidd^ xnr. 112. 

16. Where the condition of a bcmd was, that the ddigor should annually 
deliver certain articles to the wife of the obligee, if she should survive him, an 
action may be maintained upon the bond, by the adminbtrator of the obligee, 
after his decease, for the benefit of his widow, for breach of the condition. 
Luques y. Thomp^oHy xxyi. 514. 
See Actions, die. I. 19. 

Assumpsit, L 14, 15, 16. II. 21. 

V. (a) 9. VI. 18, 19. 


1. The acts, establishing boom corporations, impose, upon the owners of 
lumber, the liability to pay toll, for the security and preservation of their 
property ; but do not apply to rails, intended to pass down the river, but 
accidentally stopped by the boom. Chase v. Dwinal^ vii. 134. 

2. The proviso, in the private act, of March 15, 1805, incorporating the 
pToprietors of the side booms in Androscoggin river, and the additional act 
of Feb. 29, 1812, that ^^ the fees aforesaid shall, at all times, hereafter, be 
subject to the revision and alteration of the legislature,^^ is a subsisting and 
perpetual reservation of the right to increase, or reduce, the toll, from time 
to time, at the pleasure of the legislature. Androscoggin side booms v. 
Hasken, VII. 474. 

3. Where, by a subsequent statute, the fees were increased, above the rate 
first established, without any new reservation of the power of revision, the 
legislature has still the power of reducing them, at pleasure. Androscoggin 
sUe booms v. HaskeU^ vii. 474. 

4 The provision, in the private act of March 21, 1829, that the same 
corporation shall not be entitled to receive toll, till the logs, in their booms, 
are surveyed by a surveyor appointed by the selectmen of Brunswick or 
Topsham, binds the corporation, to cause such survey to be made. Andros- 
coggin side booms v. Htukellf vii. 474. 

5. Where the charter of a corporation authorized the erection of a boom, 
parol evidence is admissible, to prove, that the boom was erected by the cor- 
poration. Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lamson^ xyi. 224. 

6. Where the act of incorporation provided for the survey of all Iocs, by 
the surveyor general of Bangor^ there being no oflicer with that title, it was 
held, that a survey, by the surveyor general for the county of Penobscot, 
residing at Bangor, was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the act. 
Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lamson^ xvi. 224. 

7. Where the statute gives a corporation a lien on logs, for boomage, an 
action can be maintained therefor, against a person, making an express 
promise to pay therefor, before delivery of the logs, or, by whose order, the 
logs were delivered to or received from, the boom. Penobscot Boom Corp. 
V. Baker ^ xvi. 233. 

8. When the logs are rafted, and well secured, the right to boomage 
accrues, and is not taken away, if some of them are lost, without any neg- 
lect or carelessness of the corporation. Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Baker^ 
XVI- 283. 

Digitized by 



9. In an action^ for recovery of boomage, on logs, eTidence, Aat the de- 
fendant had lost otfier logs, which had come into the boom, the same season, 
in a different lot or parcel, through the neglect of the plalntifb, is inadmissi- 
ble. Penobscot Boom Corp. t. Wadleigh^ xyi. 285. 

10. The proprietors of the side booms, in Androscoggin river, are bound, 
by their cluurter, to see, that their piers and booms are firm and sound, and 
capable of securing logs, and are responsible for all losses, occasioned by 
want of ordinary care. Weld v. Androscoggin side booms, vi. 93. 

11. The corporation is entitled to toll, for such logs, as are actually stop- 
ped, and properly secured for the owner, though the booms were defective, 
and other logs of the same owner, then in the boom, were lost, in conse- 
quence of such defects. Proprietors of side booms v. TFe/d, vi. 105. 


1. Bottomry bonds may be executed, by the owner of a ship, at a home 
port, and their validity does not depend upon the application of the money, 
when obtained by the owner, to the purposes of the ship or voyagq. Gredy 
V. Waterhouse^ xix. 9. 

2. It is the essence of a bottomry bond, that it be for money, taken upon a 
maritime risk. Greely v. Waterhimse^ xix. 9. 

8. When a bottomry bond is given, as collateral, for a debt due, that fact 
may be shown, when the interest of third persons are thereby to be affected, 
notwithstanding the recital in the bond, that it is given for money lent and ad- 
vanced. Greely v. Waterhtmsey xix. 9. 

4. When a bottomry bond is given, to secure past indebtedness, if that be 
discharged, to the amount of the security, by bottomry, it may be regarded, 
as a new loan on bottomry. Greely v. Waierhouse^ xix. 9. 

5. When unaccompanied by delivery, such bond cannot be regarded as a 
mortgage, unless recorded, as required by stat 1839, c. 390. Greely v. 
Waterhouse^ xix. 9. 


The offence of breaking is, a violation of the security, intended to ex- 
clude ; and, where a store is lighted up, and the clerks are in the store, to 
wait upon customers, and the doors are merely latched, in the ordinary man- 
ner ; without any fastening to exclude others, and before eight o'clock in the 
evening, one carefully lifts the latch, secretly, and without the knowledge of 
the attendants in the store, and enters, with an intention to commit a larceny, 
and does so commit a larceny, this is not such breaking and entering, as 
constitutes the crime, described in Rev. Stat. c. 155, § II. State v, Neto- 
begin^ xxv. 500. 

Digitized by 



See BiULMENT, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 


1. Cerdoraii does not lie, to set aside the doings of a town, respecting the 
location and acceptance of a town way. If they are not legal, they are 
merely void. Todd v. Rame^ ii. 55. 

2. Certiorari will not be granted, except on petition of those, who have a 
direct and vested le^ interest m the subject matter. Bath Turnpike v. 
Magowiy VIII. 292. Harkness v. Waldo Co. ComnCrs^ kxvi. 353. 

3. It will not be granted on petition of a turnpike corporation, to set aside 
the doings of county commissioners, in locating a county road, if such corpo- 
ration had no other interest, except in the fact, that the travel would be diverted 
from their turnpike, by the continuance of such road, though such county 
road might have been illegally located. Bath Twmpike v. MagouM^ viii. 
292. Cusking v. Gay^ xxiii. 9. 

4. On certiorari, it appearing, by the record, that a member of the court 
of sessions was the owner of land, over which a county road was located, at 
the time of the location and acceptance, and it not appearing, by the record, 
that he, being present, did not participate in the proceedings, they were quash- 
ed, ^ate V. Dtlesdemier^ xi. 473. 

5. The proceedings were further held to be irregular, one of the petition- 
ers having been appointed, and acting, as one of the locating committee. 
State V. BelesdcmieTj xi. 473. 

6. In an action of trespass, by the owner of land, against a surveyor, who 
made a road, located by the court of sessions, the plaintiff cannot take excep- 
tions to the regularity of the proceedings of the court ; that can be done only 
on certiorari. Baker v. Runnels^ xii. 235. 

7. Certiorari is the regular process, under which the errors of inferior 
tribunals, from which there is no appeal, are to be examined and correct- 
ed. Dow V. True^ xix. 46. 

8. Where, under the statutes 1839, c. 412, and 1835, c. 195, a debtor was 
discharged from arrest, by the justices, after a partial disclosure of his afl^irs, 
he having disclosed sufficient property, in the opinion of the justices, to pay 
the debt, on which he was arrested, the proceedings were quashed, on certio- 
rari. Dow V. True^ xix. 46. 

9. A motion to quash proceedings on certiorari, because the writ was sued 
out, without serving a rule on the debtor discharged from arrest, to show 
cause, was denied, when, upon scire facias^ served upon him, the debtor ap- 
peared, and the cause was argued, in his behalf, upon its merits. Dow v. 
TVwc, XIX. 46. 

10. Certiorari will not be granted, because the record of the county com- 
missionerB does not show how, nor by whom, notice was given to the parties 
interested : — 

Nor^ because none of the owners of land, over which the road was located^ 
were named, except those who claimed damages : — 

Digitized by 



iVor, because the repiurt of the commtttae, appomted to estimate damages, 
was signed only by two, the other being premit, and not dissenting : — 

Nor^ because only a part of the road, prayed for, was accepted : — 

Nor^ because the damages, sustained hj certain individuals, were paid \j 
persons, having a deep interest in the road, and thus their releases were o^ 
tained : — 

Nor^ because the road, as established, was within the limits of one town. 
Va$$dibarough^ petitioners^ jjx. 338. CuMng v. Gajf, xxiii. 9. 

11. Writs of certiorari are grantable, only at the discretion of the court; 
but thb is a legal discretion, to be exercised according to the rules of law* 
Cusking V. Gay, xxiii. 9. 

12. The writ will not be granted to a party, for an error of mere form, 
where the exception is purely technical, if he has suffered no essential injury 
thereby. Cushing v. Gay, xxiii. 9. 

18. If the county commissioners make return of the location of a road, to 
an adjournment of a regular session, commencing previously to the location, 
their proceedings will be quashed, upon certiorari, though the applicant may 
not have suffered any injury from the irregularity. ParsonsfiM v. Lard^ 
XXIII. 511. 

14. If the justices, taking the examination of a poor debtor, deprive the 
creditor of his rights, in any examination of the debtor, having a tendency to 
exhibit conduct inconsistent with the oath prescribed by the statute, their pro- 
ceedings will be corrected on certiorari. Little v. Cochran^ xxiv. 509. 

15. Where a town or private way is laid out by the court of sessions, un- 
less it appear of record, in that court, that the town had unreasonably delayed 
or refused to lay out such way, it will be good cause for quashing the pro- 
ceedings, on certiorari. State v. Povmal^ x. 24. 

16. Irregularities, appearing upon the face of the proceedings, upon roads 
laid out by the court of sessions, can be corrected only upon certiorari. 
Goodwin v. Hallowell^ xii. 271. 

17. A writ of certiorari will not be granted, on account of errors in mere 
matters of form ; as, where there is an omission to state, upon the record of 
the commissioners, that the reAisal of the town to confirm the location of a 
town road by the selectmen, was unreasonable, when the application to the 
commissioners stated that the refusal was unreasonable, and it does not appear 
otherwise. North Berwick v. York County Com, xxv. 69. 

18. It is no sufficient cause, for granting a writ of certiorari, on the peti- 
tion of the owners of a township, Aat the lots located by the county commis- 
sioners, for public uses, contain a less quantity of land, than is reserved in the 
grant. Farrar v. Loringy ixvi. 202. 

19. Where the county commissioners adjudged a highway to be of com- 
mpn convenience and necessity, and laid out only a portion of it, a certiorari 
to quash their proceedings, for that cause, will not be granted, on the petition 
of persons, who have no interest therein, except as members of the commu- 
nity. Harkness v. Waldo County Com.^ xxvi. 353. 


1. Where A. had levied an execution upon land, as the property of L. ; 
B. had levied an execution upon the same land, as the property of L's son. 

Digitized by 


cHA]fPKBTT.-«»cauiKJBar.<— OHBA«m.— ^CLEftft or THB coirrrs. 147 

and C. hmd lened an eiecntioii opoii <he mxae tend, as the property of both 
tiie fiidier and aon ; aad it was anerwaids agreed, between A., B., and C, titet 
C. ^lould bring a suit, in his own name, to obtain possession of the land, for 
Ae benefit of all ; and it was agreed, that the land should be sold, aiid the 
proceeds of the sale should be applied to the payment of their several claims, 
m a certain order, it was held, that this agreement did not constitute champer^ 
ly. Fr9$t y. Ptme^ xu. IIL 

3. Bfaintenaace consists, in a person^s unkwfoUy taking in hiknd, or uphold- 
ing, quarrels and suits, wherein he is not concerned, to tl^ hindrance of com- 
mon ri^t Ginoen v. NaweU^ l 393. 

& Where sereral persons, being taxed for the support of public worship, 
by a parish, not of their own denomination, bound themselves, each to pa^ 
hw proportion of the expense of defending any suit, against any one of their 
number, for such taxes, and the cost of any other legal mode of resisting pay* 
roent thereof; this was held, not to be maintenance, and the bond was good. 
Gawm V. NoweU^ i. 292. 


See Bond, I, 1. 
Debt, 5. 


1. Where an indictment, for cheating, alleges ^ goods to have been ob- 
tained by several specific fttlse pretences, it is not necessary to prove die whole 
of the pretences charged, but, proof of a part, and, that the goods were ob- 
tained -thereby, is sufficient State v. Milh^ xvii. 211. I^ate v. Dvnlapy 
XXIV. 77. 

2. Where it was proved, on ihe trial of soch indictment, that the defend- 
ant represented, that his horse, which he offered in exchange for property of 
the other, was called the Charley, knowing that it was not the horse, called by 
that name, and, that, by such false pretences, he obtained the property of the 
other person in exchange, it was held, that the indictment was sustained, 
though the horse was equal in value to the property received in exchange, 
and as good a horse as the Charley. State v. Mulsy xvii. 211. 


1. A cleric of the courts is not bound to pay over any part of the moneys, 
received by him, to the county treasurer, unless they have amounted to more 
than 91000, subsequently to the first Wednesday of the January previous, 
although, if he have held the office but part of the year, they may have 
amounted to more than a proportional part of that sum. Harris v. Dinsmore^ 
XI. d65. 

2. The duties of clerk of the courts, holden by county commissioners, are 

Digitized by 



a part of the duties of the clerk of the judicial oourti ; and he is entitled to 
receive the fees, and is required to render an account thereof, in like manner, 
as for fees of those courts. WkUe v. Fox^ xzii. 841. 

8. A clerk of the courts is not entitled to be specifically paid, for incidental 
duties of his office, for which no compensation is prorided m the fee bill, nor, 
for attendance in the courts ; being compensated therefor only by tfie fees al- 
lowed for the performance of other duties. WkUe t. Fox, xxii. 841. 

4. But, if the county commissioners make an allowance of compensation 
to the clerk, for attendance in court, making dockets, indexes, Sdc. he is 
bound by the statute, to account for the money, dius received, in the samo 
manner, as for moneys received, which are authmsed by the fee bill. WkUe 
T. Fox, XXII. 841. 

5. The term of office of clerks of die judicial courts was not terminated, 
and new appointments made, by law, when the Revised Statutes went into 
operation, but they ocmtinued, as cl^ks, under th^ previous appointments. 
WkiU V. Fox, XXII. 841. 

6. Nor are the sureties of a clerk discharged, by the provisions of the 
Bevised Statutes, c. 100, § 7, in case he neglect to pay over any sum, for 
which he is accountaUe, nor by a change in some of his duties. White v. 
Fox, XXII. 841. 


1. Where a creditor received, from his debtor, the note of a third person, 
as collateral security, which he promised to use all reasonable means to col* 
lect, and to account for ; and afterwards, the principal debt was otherwise paid ; 
the liep of the creditor was diereby dischai^ed, and he was aboolved from 
all fbrther obligation to collect the note, and bound to return it to the owner. 
Overlock v. HilU, viii. 888. 

2. Where a negotiable note was given, and indiN-sed by the payee, as 
collateral security for another note, no action can be maintained thereon, but 
by the hdder of the principal note. Ltme v. Paddford, xrr. 94. 

8. Where a note has been indorsed and transferred, bona fide, before its 
maturity, as collateral security for a demand short of its nominal value, vmnt 
of consideration furnishes no valid defence. Smith v. Hiseock, xir. 449. 

4. The indorsee of a promissory note has the right to hold as much col- 
lateral security, as he can obtain, if he does nothing, under color of this right, 
to injure other creditors. York Bank v. Appleton, xvii. 65. 

5. If a creditor receive collateral security, this does not prevent him from 
makinff the principal security available, by suit or otherwise. Snow v. T%om* 
aston uank, xiz. 269. 

6. Where property is put into the hands of the payee of a note, by the 
principal promiser, as collateral security therefor, it is received by him, under 
an implied obligation, to account for the proceeds. And, whatever expense 
is necessarily incurred by him, to make it available, is a fair charge upon the 
property, and the balance only is to be applied, in payment of what is due. 
Starrett v. Barber, xx. 457. 

7. And if, in a suit, in relation to such property, by the payee of the note, 
he calls the principal promiser as a witness, and releases Mm from the war- 

Digitized by 


coLisJowaukL ssoDmiTT.-^coLLscrom. 140 

xantj of tide to the property, inqdiecl in the bill of tale, such release does 
not discharge the principal <a suretiea from the note. Siarrett y. Barber^ 
XL. 457. 

8. Where a negotiate security was giren, and taken, for an existing debt, 
it is competent for the parties to agree, that it shall be, as collateral security 
merely ; and such agreement may be proved by parol. In such case, the 
holder may endeavor to enforce payment of the collateral security, by suit, 
and, failing of success, may resort to his original security, without restoring 
the collateral. Camitock v. Smith, zziii. 202. 


1. Upon the choice of a collector of taxes, the town may lawfully require 
sureties for the faithful discharfle of his duties ; and his refusal, to find such 
sureties, is a non-acceptance m the trust, even after he has taken the oath of 
office. Morrdl v. Sylvester, i. 248. 

2. The penalty, annexed by law, to the refusal to accept a town office, 
does not apply to a collector of taxes. MorreJl v. Syhetier, i. 248. 

8. It is not necessary to the validity of a warrant, for the collection of 
taxes, that it be delivered to the collector, during the year, for which he and 
the assessors were elected ; it is sufficient, if they made and signed it, while 
in office. Miusey v. WkiU, in. 290. 

4. A collector of taxes, having given a bond, conditioned, that he should 
" well and truly collect all such rates, for which he should have sufficient 
warrant,' under the hands of the assessoTB, according to law, and pay the 
same into the treasury,^ received from the assessors a tax bill, not signed^ 
with a warrant, in legal form, and afterwards receiyed, by voluntary pay- 
ments, a large part of the taxes, which he neglected to account for ; it was 
held, that, the tax bill not being signed, the warrant, annexed to it, was in- 
sufficient, and the condition of the bond was not forfeited. Foxcroft v. 
Neoau, rv. 72. 

5. Where the bond, given by a collector of taxes, recited, that he was duly 
chosen, and was conditioned for the faithful discharge of his duty, it was 
held, in an action on the bond, for not paying over moneys collected, that 
die sureties could not controvert the legality of the meeting, at which he was 
chosen, nor the validity of his election, nor the legality of the assessment, 
nor any act of the town, for which they themselves would not be liable, in 
consequence of their suretyship. Ford v. Clough, viii. 334. 

6. An agreement between a town and one of its inhabitants, that he should 
cdlect the taxes, at a certain per cent, on being chosen sole collector and 
constable, performed on the part of the town, is a legal contract, and binding 
on the cdlector. And he is bound, for that compensation, to collect, not only 
the amount raised at the meeting, when he was chosen, but all taxes raised, 
where Ae bills were committed to him, within the year. Gould v. New 
PoriUmd, xy. 28. 

7. A collector of taxes, who has given a bond to the town, " to pay over 
iSbe money collected, to the treasurer,** is bound to pay over mcmey, volun- 
tarily paid to him, by the inhabitants, although the tax bills, committed to him, 
are imperfect, and illegal, and though he has received no collector's warrant 
Johnson v. Goodridge, xv. 29. 

Digitized by 


150 coLLKCToa.-«H)oiBfoii OABMBu— oonnm law. 

8. The retam of a ooUector of lazes, upon his wanaat, of his p r o c o odia git 
on the distress and sale of chattels, ftv payment of taxes, is, prima fmoie^ 
evidence of his having tendered to the former owner the overplus, arising 
from such sale, heyond the amount of the tax and charges. JDesM v. Wtmh' 
hm, xviL 100. 

9. A collector of taxes cannot he excused from die perfonnaace of hi0 
duty, in cdlecting and paying over laxes oommitled to him, hy reason of 
any ill^ality in the prior prooeedingB of the town, <Hr of its offiicerB, unless 
he was thereby prevented from pOTforming such duty safely. EMar v. 
SoMige^ XVII. 444. 

10. Where real estate has been lurod, as non-restdent, the coUector is 
not justified, in seizing and selling personal property ; but must pursue the 
mode pointed out for the collection of non-resident taxes. IaoU v. WormeU^ 
XIX. 100. 

11. In the sale of the lands cff non-residents, for taxes, the coUector is 
not authorized to convey, except to the highest bidder ; and, if he make a 
deed to another, by substitution, it is void. Keene v. Houghion^ xix. 968. 

12. By Stat 1821, c. 116, ^ 47, it is the duty of an officer, having ar- 
rested a delinquent coUector of taxes, by virtue of a treasurer's warrant of 
distress, to commit him to prison ; and this provision is not repealed, by stat. 
1836, c 845, ^ 6; and a bond, taken hy such officer, on discharging tiia 
coUector, without commitnent, is void. DaggeU v. Everett^ lax. tTB. 

18. A coneetor of taxes is bound to obey a warrant fix)m ^ assessors, in 
due form, though they may not have complied with every requisition of the 
bw, anterior to issuing it ; and it is no defence to a suit on his bond, that the 
a ss essm ent was not signed by the assessors. KeUixr v. Sa^age^ xx. 199. 

14. A coHector, having given bond, and acted in that capacity, is estopped 
to deny the legali^ of \& election. Kellar v. Savage^ xx. 199. 
See Bond, HI. 12. 

Contract, HI. (a) 8. 

Tax, ni. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19. 

Town, L 6. 


See Bailment, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, la 
Witness, L (b) 1, 5. 


1. The Stat 5 Rich. 2, c. 7, against forcible entry, is part of the common 
law of this state. Harding^s case^ i. 22. 

2. Forcible entry into a dwelling house is indictable, at common law, 
though the force be alleged only in the formal words, vi et armis ; in such 
indictment, it is not necessary, to allege a seizin of the loctu in quo, Hard^ 
ing's case^ i. 22. 

Digitized by 


COMPLAIKT.— (KmDinON, X* 161 


1. In a complaint for larceny, tb« flooda, alleged to be stolen, should be 
named in the body of the complaint, and not in a schedule, annexed thereto. 
Cumndngs* case^ ni. 51. 

2. In a complabt, under stat 1821, c 83, against one, for cutting trees, 
on land not his own, it is material to allege, that it was without consent of 
the owner. HdWs case^ v. 409. 

3. Where one has preferred articles of the peace against another, the ma- 
gistrate may permit the oomplainant to withdraw the process, on an atj^ustment 
q£ the difficulty, by winch the fears of the complainant are allayed. CrtndeU 
T. GleoMon^ z. 325. 

4. Where criminal prosecutions originate by statute, on complabt, one, 
under oath or affirmation, is implied, as a part of the technical meaning of the 
terma. Campbell y. Tkamptorii xyi. 117. 

5. A justice of the peace has no power to secure and detain articles, of a 
person, pedling without license, until after a complaint, under oath ; and, if 
the complaint and detention are on the same day, parol proof is admissible, 
to show, that the detention was prior to the oath. Campbell v. Thompson^ 
XVI. 117. 

6. hi a complaint against one, before a justice of the peace, for a larceny 
not triahle by such magiatmte, but brought before him, to have the offender 
conmiitted or recc^ized, to take his trial, at the proper tribunal, the offence 
should be stated, on oath, in substance, and clearly ; but the same technical 
precisioii and accuracy is not required, as in an indictment. State v. Corzon^ 
X. 473. 

See Criminal Law, 22. 




1. The usual reservation of a certain portion of lands, for public uses, in 
giants from the sUite, is a ^condition subsequent ; imposing on the grantees, 
the duty of impartially setting apart the quantity reserved, for the designated 
uses ; and, until the existence of a party capable of hdding, under the reser- 
vation, the fee of the land is vested in the original grantees, and their heirs« 
Porter v. Griswold, vi. 430. 

2. Whether a condition is precedent, or subsequent, must be determined, 
by the intention of the parties, and not by technical terms, nor the collocation 
of the words used. Chreen v. Thomas^ n. 318. 

3. A deed conveying a farm to another, ^ in consideration of a good and 
sufficient maintenance, bemg well and truly furnished to A. and B., during 
their natural lives,'^ by the grantee, contained the following proviso : ^^ If the 
said (grantee) shall fail to furmsh a good and sufficient maintenance to the 
ssid £ and B^ aa aforesaid, then this instrument to be of no effect,^* and. 

Digitized by 


158 commMif i. 

^ under the condition aforesaid, the taid (grantee) is to come into immecHate 
possession of the premises.^ Held, that the fee, and the ri^t to iramediata 
possession of the land, passed to the grantee, subject to be defeated, by a non- 
performance of the conditions, which were subsequent Green y. Thomas^ 
XI. 318. 

4. In an action upon a policy of insurance, referring to certain conditions, 
wherein it was stipulated, that, ^^ the assured shall procure a certificate, under 
the hand of a magistrate, notary public, or clergyman, most contiguous to the 
place of the fire, dec. — and, until such certificate is produced, the loss shall 
not be deemed payable" ; after the destruction of the property insured, by 
fire, the assured applied to the two nearest magistrates, who refused to gtre 
the required certificate, and then applied to the next nearest magistrate, who 
gave one, which was produced to tne defendants ; it was held, that the cer- 
tificate of the nearest magistrate was a condition precedent to the ri^t of 
the plaintiff to recover. Leadhetter t. Etna In$. do. xiiu 265. 

5. Whether the acts, to be performed by the parties, in a covenant or agree- 
ment, are mutual, dependent, or concurrent, or otherwise, is to be determin- 
ed by their intention, apparent from the written evidence, of what has beeo 
agreed, in connexion with the subject matter, to which it is applied. SewaU v. 
Wilkins, XIV. 168- 

6. Where one ffives to another his promissoiy notes, payable at diflerent 
times, and at a place specified, and the other stipulates, upon pajrment of 
the notes, accordmg to their tenor, and upcMi reasonable demand, to coavey 
certain lands, by a good and sufficient deed ; actual payment of the notes, 
or an unconditional tender of payment, is a condition, precedent to the con- 
veyance. Sewall V. Wilkinsy xiv. 168, Winslow v. CopeJand^ xv. 276. 

7. Where two acts are to be performed at the same time, neither party caa 
maintain an action against the other, without performance, or tender of per- 
formance, on his part, unless it is expressly waived by the defendant, <v ex* 
cused by his disability. Brown v. Gammon^ xiy. 276. Low v. MarskaU^ 
xvii. 232. Apphton v. Chase^ xix. 74. BM v. Kennedy^ xix. 267. 

8. Where the state granted a township of land to an individual, with a 
reservation, that each person, who had settled thereon before a certain day, 
should receive from the grantee a deed of a hundred acre lot, including his 
improvement, on payment of a certain sum, before a fixed day, it was held, 
that it was the duty of the settler, to make known hb intention, to take the 
land, and his readiness to pay the money, or that he had been prevented from 
doing so, by the acts of Uie other party, before he could demand a deed. 
Hovetf V. Veane^ xv. 216. 

9. In an action on a bond, conditioned to purchase, and pay a stipulated 
price for, a tract of land, if the terms of the contract show, that the pay- 
ment is to be made before the d^ed is to be given, and no money is paid, or 
offered, at the time fixed, the acti<»i can be maintained, without first tendering 
a deed. Robinson v. Heard^ xv. 296. 

10. Where a bond or deed was to be given by the vendor of premises 
bargained for, upon the first payment being made, and the purche^r vras, 
at Qie same time, to give satisfactory security for the remaining payments, 
he must tender such security, before he can charge the vendor, as in fault, 
for not giving such deed or bond. AppUlon v. Chase^ xix. 74. 

11. If the obligor, in a bond, agree to be bound, unless, by the time ap- 
pointed, he should make secure the payments mentioned in the bond, ^^ and 
demand a deed of the premises" ; such stipulation is a waiver of the tender. 

Digitized by 


co!a>inoif, I. n. 153 

which the obligee might otherwise be bound to make. Babb y. Kennedy^ 

jxx. aw. 

12. Where real estate was conveyed, and the grantee agreed to allow the 
grantor a certain sum, less than the consideration money, when he should 
have removed certain incumbrances, such removal to be, on or before a cer- 
tain day ; and, where the incumbrances were removed by the grantor, but 
not widiin the time, the grantee not having repudiated the contract, it was 
held, that the performance, at the time, was not to be considered a condition 
precedent, and, that, if the grantee had suffered, from the delay, it should 
be deducted from the amount agreed to be allowed. Roberts v. marttan^ xx. 

13. If one would enforce a contract, which operates as a penalty, he should 
show, that he has performed all the acts, incumbent on him to perform, to 
bring the case clearly withb the contract Cheslep v. Welchy xxi. 50. 

14. Where an action was referred, by rule of court, and the parties agreed, 
in writing, " that the parties shall have the report of the referee opened, as 
soon as made, and, that the party defeated shall pay the other the amount 
awarded, within twenty days of the award** or pay to the other the sum of 
one hundred dollars ; and neither party requested, that the report of the ref> 
eree ^x>uld be opened, and it was returned into court, and judgment rendered 
tfaereon, and ihe amount subsequently paid, before any suit, but not within the 
twenty days, it was held, that no action could be sustained to recover the 
cue hundred dollars. Chetley v. Wdch^ xxi. 50. 

15. Where one made a deed, in fee, reserving a life estate, in a part of the 
premises, and declaring, that *•*• this deed is made, and is to have effect, upon 
the foUowing cooditbus,** viz. die payment of money, at divers times, to other 
persons ; it was held, that the £ee passed immediately, on condition subsequent 
Howard v. Turner, vt 106. 

16. Where the intention of a testator is, that a devisee should enter, imme- 
diately, upon the estate, and out of it make provision for the support of other 
persons, and also perform other things, which would have been impossible, 
without the enjoyment of the estate, me performance of those requirements 
is not a c<»Kiition precedent, though the will concludes, that, after the ner- 
formance of these requirements, ^^ he shall, by this instrument, be entitled to 
said real estate,*^ to him and his heirs and assigns forever. Stark v» Smiley^ 
XXV. 201. 

6ee Bills, 4cc. I. (b) 4. 

CoNTKACT, Vni. (a) 2, 4r-12. 
Devise, III. 1, 14, 16. 


1. An estate was granted, upon condition, that the grantor should be permit- 
ted to occupy a part of the premises, and that the grantee should cultivate the 
land, in a husbandlike manner, and render the grantor half the produce, pro- 
vide him with fuel, and pay him certain sums of money. The money being 
unpaid, the grantor notified the grantee, that the condition was broken, aM 
oraered him to quit the premises ; afterwards, he received his proportion of 
the produce actually raised, though the farm was badly managed. The 
grantee then sold the land, subject to the condition. Held, that this was a 
sufficient entry for condition broken ; that the acceptance of the produce was 
00 waiver of the breach, for non-payment of the money, and that the forfeit- 

Digitized by 


154 CONDITION, u. — coKrucr or laws. 

ure was not within the provisioDB <^ the stat 1821, c. 50, § 2, the laad not 
having been granted by way of pledge, by the party, seeking relief. Fro§i 
v. Butler^ vii. 225. 

2. Where a sum of money had been paid, as part ccMisideration for the 
conveyance of land, upon certain conditions, subsequently to be perfumed by 
the grantee, but which had not been performed, and the grantor had reclaimed 
the land, for condition broken, the grantee could not recover back the amount, 
thus paid, nor could the grantor, aAerwards, recover that part of the considep- 
ation, which remained unpaid. FroM v. Frott^ xi. 285. 

3. In an action on a bond, conditioned to convey land, on payment of cer- 
tain notes, it was held, that a tender, made two days before a note fell due, to 
the hdder, who replied, ^^ you have made your tender, I shall not take the 
money ,^ was a sufficient performance of the condition, as to that note ; hot, 
that a tender, made one day aAer another note fell due, to which the holder 
replied, he had ^ nothing to say or do, about it,^^ was not a sufficient excuse 
for non-payment of that note, when it fell due. EaUm v. Emerwn^ znr. 

4. In a contract, in relation to real estate, a condition, for the benefit of the 
party to be charged, may be waived by him, by parol. Blood v. Hardy ^ 
XV. 61. 

5. If an obli^r contracts to convey land, on the performance of certain 
conditi<Mi8, withm a stipulated time ; if the obligee shiul elect to become the 
purchaser, upon the conditions named, it b his duty to give notice of his 
election, within the time, if he would require a conveyance. Weerrem v. 
Wkeeler^ xii. 484. 

6. Where, by the contract, performance is to be made, by the parties re- 
spectively, at the same time, the par^, who would claim performance, of the 
other, must show a readiness, and oner to perform, on his part But, when 
the contract itself determines which party shall first prepare, and offi^r to per- 
form, neither the law nor the tribunab dbregard such agreement Warrem v. 
Wheeler^ xxi. 484. 

7. A feme tole^ one of two joint administrators, gave a mortgage tq her 
sureties, conditioned, to save them harmless from the official bond, given by 
her and her coUea^^e to the judge of probate ; and afterwards took husband. 
It was held, that this condition did not necessarily extend to any unfaithfulness, 
but her own ; but, if it might apply to the acts of both, it included only Uieir 
joint acts, and not those of her colleague, done after her own authority had 
ceased, by the marriage. Potter v. Wehh^ vi. 14. 

8. If a condition subsequent be followed by a limitaticHi over, in case the 
condition b not complied with, or there is a breach of it, it b termed a con- 
ditional limitation, and takes effect, without any entry or claim, and no act b 
necessary to vest the estate in the party, to whom it b limited. Steams v. 
Godfrey^ ivi. 158. 

See Bills, 6zc. I. (b) 2, 3, 5. III. 1. 
Bond, H. 36. 

Contract, VIII. (a) 1,2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12. 
Deed, IV. 3. 


1. Where a contract was made, in a foreign province, to be performed in 
thb state, and damages for non-performance are sought, by a suit here, the 

Digitized by 



kw8 of tiuB state are to gorern, in tiie absence d proof of the fofeign laws. 
WkUe V. Perley, xv. 470. 

2. If a promise be made, out of tho state, by a foreigner, to one living 
within this state, to deliver specific articles, on a certain day, and no place of 
delivery is specified, it is tho duty of the promisor to ascertain, from the 
promisee, where he will receive the articles. White v. Perley^ xv. 470. 

3. Where an act of another state of the Union, incorporating certain per- 
SODS as a manufacturing company, makes the private property of the stock- 
holders liable for the fulfihnent of the contracts of the company, but pointB 
out no mode of enforcing the liability ; if the courts of other states are bound 
to give efiect to this remedial provision, the course of proceeding must be 
regulated by the law of the state, where the remedy is sought to be enfbrt^. 
Drmkwaier v. Portland Marine RaUtoajf^ xviii. 85. 

4. Where a note was made in another state, the payee living there, tho 
laws of that state are to determine, when it becomes due, the days of grace, 
to wluch it is entitled, and every thing, which relates to the right of requiring 
payment Bumham v. Webster^ xix. 232. 

See AoBHcr, H. 2, 8. VH. 2. Vffl. 1. 


1. A conspiracy, to commit a misdemeanor^ is not merged in the commis- 
non of it Slate v. Murray ^ xv. 100. 

2. On the trial of an indictment against several, to charge a married wo- 
man with the crime of adultery, the wife of one of the persons indicted can- 
not be a ¥dtnes8. State v. Burlingham^ xv. 104. 

3. In an action for a conspiracy, to injure the plaintiff,. by a groundless 
criminal prosecution, the want of probable cause is essential to the mainten- 
ance of the suit, however malicious the defendants may have been. Payean 
V. Caswell^ xxii. 212. 

See EviDBNCB, VIL (c) 15. 


1. If a constable, having given bond, for the faithful performance of his 
duties and trust, as to all processes by him served or executed, seize the goods 
of A., under an execution against B., it is not merely a private trespass, but a 
breach of his bond. Archer v. Noble^ iii. 418. 

2. The return of the constable or collector, on the back of the warrant, 
for calling a town or parish meeting, is the only proper evidence, that the 
meeting was legally warned. And such return must show the manner of 
warning, or it will be bad, and parol testimony b inadmissible, to supply the 
defect TttUk v. Cary^ vii. 426. 

Digitized by 



3. Where a peiBon^ chosen to the offices of coostaUe and coUectcMr, gave 
one bond, to the town treasurer, for the faithful performance of his duties, in 
both offices, in a penal sum equal to double the amount of taxes committed to 
him, and $200, it was held to be a sufficient bond, to qualify him to act as 
constable, and it is not necessary, that the bond should be approved by the 
selectmen and town clerk, in writing. Quimby v. Adauu^ xi. 332. Eus* 
tis V. Kidder^ xxvi. 97. 

4. The provisions of the statute are sufficiently complied with, by giving a 
bond, conditioned, ^^ to faithfully discharge his auty, aa camtableJ*^ Quimbp 
V. Adorns^ zi. 332. 

5. A judgment against a constable, in an action of assumpsit, is not suffi- 
cient evidence to support an action on his official bond. Baitey v. BtUUrfidd^ 
xnr. 112. 

6. Since stat. 1836, c. 212, an official bond, given by a constable, to the 
treasurer of a city, town, plantation, or parish, is not a (^x>d statute bond, but 
it may be good at common law ; and must be sued in the name of the origi- 
nal obligee. Lord v. Lancty, xxi. 468. 

7. It is the duty of a constable, who has attached personal property, on 
mesne process, to deliver it over to a deputy sheriff, havii^ the execution, 
issued in the same case, on his demanding the property, within thirty days 
after judgment ; though the constable be stUl in office, and authorized to serve 
the execution. Higgins v. Kendrick^ xiv. 83. 

See Akemdmbnt, IL 18. 
Assumpsit, IL 12. 
Bail, 8, 9. 

Pleading, II. (b) 3, 14, 15. 
Regobd, 2. 













1. Whether the grants, &c. mentioned in the 7th, of the terms of the act, 
separating Maine from Massachusetts, can be extended beyond the immediate 
acts of the legislature, so as to include lands, conveyed by deeds of the com- 
mittee on Eastern lands, dubitatur. Lapish v. Wells^ vi. 175. 

Digitized by 



2. By the clause in the act of sepamtioi^ exempting the lands of Massa* 
chusetts from taxation, while the title remains in the commonwealth, lb intend- 
ed, the legal, and not the equitable titie. Emar$<m y. Woihingion CamUy^ 
UL 68. 

3. The tenns and conditions, of the act of separation, do not deprive a 
settier upon the lands of Massachusetts, within this state, of the right to 
be reimbursed the value of his improvements thereon, if he have been in pos- 
session, and made improvements thereon, six years or more. FUke v. Briggs^ 
XII. 37a 


1, The clause, in Art IV., part 1, ^ 2, in the constitution, which requires the 
representatives to be apportioned upon the counties, according to the number 
of inhabitants, *^ having regard to the relative increase of population," has re- 
ference only to the fractions, in the apportionment ; authorizing the conversion 
of a fraction into a total, in cases, where the relative increase is the greatest 
OpmUm of the Justices^ iii. 477. 

2. When the office of governor has become vacant, and the powers and 
duties have devolved upon, and been exercised by, the president of the 
senate, at the end of the political year, they devolve upon the president of 
the senate of the next political year after his election, until the office of 
governor is filled. Opinion of the Justices, vi. 506. 

8. A convention, of the members of the senate and house of representa- 
tivea, cannot be ccNMtitutionally formed, for the purpose of supplying vacan- 
cies in the senate, without the concurrence of the two branches of the 
legidature, nor, until the senate have ascertained the vacancies ib. their board, 
and who are the constitutional candidates, to supply them. Opinion of the 
Justices, Ti. 514. 

4« A less number than twenty senators, if a majority of that number, may 
constitute the senate, and organize as such, and transact any business of fill- 
ing vacancies, &c. which is authorized by the constitution. Opinion of the 
Justices, VII. 483. 

5. While the president of the senate, virtute officii, is acting as governor, 
he cannot lawfully preside over the senate. Opinion of the Justices, vii. 


6. If vacancies in the senate be filled, by election, at ^ convention, formed 
of the members of the two branches of the legislature, but in which both 
blanches of the legislature, being duly organized, did not concur, such elec- 
tions will be void ; and a subsequent allowance of persons, so elected, to sit 
and act, as senators, will not give validity to their election. Nor will a sub- 
sequent vote of the senate, that they had been duly and constitutionally elected 
to fill vacancies, and are entitied to seats, clothe them with the qualifications 
and powers, to act as senators. Opinion of the Justices, vii. 483. 

7. In dividing the state into districts, for the choice of senators, the require- 
ment in Art lY. part, 2, ^ 2, that ^ the districts shall conform, as near as 
may be, to county lines," is not a mandate so explicit, as, that, obedience 
must follow, without consideration, but something is lef% to the discretion of 
the legislature ; and it is not a violation of the constitution, if the legislature, 
in their discretion, annex a part of one county to another, to form a district, 
when the annexation of a smaller part of the latter county, to the former, 
would have formed a district, having the requisite number of inhabitants. 
And, if the legislature do so, it is not within the authority of a subsequent 

Digitized by 


158 COirsnTDTIONAL LAW, «. 111. 

legislature^ to make any allenitioii of the seDitoml distrietSf as ihstk esteWBh- 
ed, till the expiiatioii of the period oi ten yean. Opmian of Whitmam^ C. 
J. and Tenney^ /. xtiii. 458. 

8. To render a divbion of the state, mto senatorial districtB, unoonsdtuticm- 
al, it must clearly appear, that it does not conform, as nearly as may he, to 
county lines ; hut, if it do so appear, it is unconstitutional, and void ; and a 
subsequent legislature may make a new arrangement of the district lines, in 
diose parts, where the prerious districting was inoperative and void. OpMon 
of Shepley, J. xviii. 458. 

9. In classing towns, for the choice of representatives, no town should be 
deprived of the right to be represented every year, unless such town shall 
apply for a separate representation, for a part of the time. Opinion of the 
Justices^ zviii. 458. 

10. In the apportionment, by the legislature of 1841, it was competent for 
the legislature, to ozclude a town from the right to be represented, in the 
legislature of 1842, if such town had applied for a separate representation, 
for the subsequent ten years, and the rights of no other town would be affects 
ed thereby ; though such town might contain more than 1500 inhabitants ; and 
such town would not thereby be exempt from taxation. Opimion qf the Jub- 
ticet^ xviiL 458. 


1. Towns and plantations, classed into districts, for the choioe of a repre- 
sentative, have a rifdit to choose one, thou^ a nu^rity of the towns may 
vote not to send. Upimon of the Justices^ vi. 486. 

2. A town, having the right to choose a representative, has the power 
to waive that right, and vote not to choose one ; and such vote is bmdinc 
on the minority of such town. Opinion qf MeUen^ C. J. and Weston^ J. 
VI. 486. 

3. By the constitution of Maine, the right to be represented, in the legisla- 
ture, is not a corporate right, but a right of the electors, of the people £em- 
selves ; and a town, having the right to choose a representative, has not the 
power to waive that right, and vote not to send a representative ; and such 
vote would not bind the minority in such town. Opinion of Preble^ /. vi. 

4. To be entitled to the right of suffrage, in the election of governor, sen- 
ators, and representatives, a person must be a citizen of the United States, 
and have his residence established in the city, town, or plantation, where he 
claims the right to vote, for three months, previous to the election. Opinion 
of the Jtuticesy vu. 4Si2. 

5. Printed ballots are within the meaning of the provision of the constitu- 
tion, which requires that elections shall be by ^* written ballots.^* Opinion of 
the Justicee^ vii. 492. 

6. Persons, under the care and direction of the overseers of the poor of a 
town, who have been disposed of, by them, for any term of time, for their 
support, are to be considered paupers, though, by their labor, they defray all 
the expense of their support; and such persons, as well as those, who have 
received assistance from the town, as paupers, are deprived of the privilege of 
voting for state officers, untU the expiration of three months, after they shall 
cease to be paupers, or receive supplies, and no longer. Opinion of the 
Justices^ VII. 497. 

Digitized by 


comwrmrumAL ulWj ni. it« t. 169 

7. A person, supporting his fwaulj in one town, and residing, to transact 
Irasiness, m another town, can vote for state officers, only in the town, where 
his fami^ has resided, three months next preceding tbe election. Opinion 
of the JnsticeM^ yii. 497. 

8. Ballots, for persons not constitutionally ^igtble, cannot be counted as 
rotes, to prevent a majority of votes, given for eligible candidates, from con- 
sdtuting an election. Opinion of the JusticeSj vii. ^^7. 

9. A ballot for senators, containing a less number of names, than is assign- 
ed to the senatorial district, in which it is given, is still a constitutional ballot 
Opinion of the Jnatieee^ vii. 497. 

10. TTie privilege of freedom from arrest, while going to, or returning from, 
die polls, on days of electicm, does not' apply to an elector, preparing to go, 
who has not actually proceeded on the way. Hohhs v# Getchm^ viii. 187. 

11. The governor and council, in counting votes for county officers, can- 
not receive, from the town clerk and selectmen, evidence, that the return, made 
by them, does not correspond with the record. Opinion of the JusticeSy xxv. 

12. Nor can they receive a copy of the record, amended by the clerk, oa 
a day, subsequent to the town meeting, the selectmen and clerk certifyinff, 
upon oath, thiett the amended record, in their opinion, is in accordance with 
the &cts ; — the amendment being, by inserting a middle name of a candi- 
date voted for. Opinion of the Justices^ xxv. 567. 


1. The term, *^ office^ ^ implies a delegation of a portion of the sovereign 
power of the legislative, judicial, or executive, departments of the govern- 
ment An employment or service, as an agent, does not. The case of pre- 
serving timber, and preventing trespasses, on the public lands, being an 
employment, as agent, under the Resolve of Feb. 6, 1822, may therefore 
be exercised by a senator or representative in the legislature. Opinion of 
the Justices^ iii. 481. 

2. The same person cannot hold and exercise the office of sheriff, deputy 
sheriff, or coroner, at the same time with that of justice of the peace. C^nn- 
ionof the Justices^ in. 484. Bamford v Melvin^ yii. 14. 

3. Therefore, a deputy sheriff, holding a commission of the peace, and ex- 
tending an execution on real estate, cannot lawfully administer the oath to 
the -appraisers. Bamford v. Melvin^ vii. 14. 


1. It IB no vidation of vested rights, if a statute, granting chancery powers, 
to relieve against all penalties and forfeitures, should operate upon penaltiea 
and forfeitures, incurred previous to its enactment ; the part^ injured having 
sdU the right to recover all, that, in equity and good conscience, is due to 
him. Potter v. Sturdioant^ iv. 154. 

2. In the act, dividing the town of Bowdoinham, and incorporating Bich- 
mond, it was provided, that Richmond should pay its proportion for the sup- 
port c^ all paupers, then on expense, in Bowdoiidiam, which it did, for two 
years ; after which, on petition of Richnumd, the legislature passed an act, 
to exonerate Richmond from such liability, in future ; it was held, that this lat- 
ter act was imconstitutional, and void, as it impaired the obligation of the con- 

Digitized by 


160 C(Hf8TITUnOHJLL LAW, T. Tl. 

tract, created by the original act of divinon and incorporaticm. Bowdoinham 
v. Riehtnond^ yi. 112. 

8. Where an act, incorporating proprietors of booms, contabed a proviso, 
that the fees shaU, at all times, hereafter, be subject to the rerision and alter* 
ation of the legis^ture, and die fees were afterwards increased, by a subse- 
quent act, containing no proviso, that the legislature might afterwards reduce 
them, it was^eld, that the legislature had still the power of reducing the 
fees, under the proviso in the first act Andro$coggin tide hoawu v. Haskell^ 
VII. 474. 

4. By an act of the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1808, certain persons 
were incorporated, as trustees of the New Gloucester schools, in the county 
of Cumberland, with authority to sell certain lands, reserved for schools, in 
said town, to put the proceeds at interest, to appropriate the interest, for the 
support of schoob, and to fill vacancies in theur board. Held, that this con- 
stituted a contract, within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, 
and this state ; and, that an act of the legislature of this state, authorizing the 
town to choose a new board of trustees, and directing the first trustees to 
deliver over the trust property, was unconstitutional and void* New GhucesUr 
tchool fund V. Bradbury y zi. 118. 

5. The legislature have power to take away, by statute, what was given by 
statute, except vested rights. Oriental Bank v. Freeze^ xviii. 109. 

6. Where a party, by statute, becomes entitled to recover a judgment, in 
the nature of a peniodty, for a greater sum, than is justly due to hiim, the right 
to the amount, to be recovered, does not become vested, till after judgment. 
Oriental Bank v. Freeze^ xviii. 109. 

7. If the charter of a corporation be repealed by the legislature, by virtue 
of a right, reserved to the legislature, in the charter, to do so, on a certain 
contingency, a creditor of the corporation can interpose no valid constitutional 
objection to such repeal, on ground, that he may uiereby be deprived of the 
power to enforce payment, in a suit, then pending against the corporatiixi, 
m which property had been attached. Read v. Frankfort Bank^ xxui. 318. 

8. The remedy of a party may be changed by the legislature, though such 
change may afiect suits, then pending, without contravening the constitu* 
tion of the United States. Read v. Frankfort Bank^ xxiii. 318. 

9. The legislature may prospectively determine, that a tenant for life, or 
those claiming under him, shall be entitled to recover, from the reversioner, 
the value of permanent improvements, made upon the estate ; but the stat. 
1843, c. 6, must not be construed as applicable to a case, where, before the 
passage of the act, the tenant for life had deceased, and the improvements 
had hereby become vested in the reversioner, as part of the estate. Upon 
such a construction, the act would be inoperative and void. AuHin v. Stevens^ 
zxnr. 620. 


1. The Stat. 1821, c. 62, ^ 6, abolishing the distinction, existing at com- 
mon law, between possession, under a deed recorded, and possession, without 
such title on record, attaching, as against the demandant the same le^ con* 
sequences to both, so far as it is retrospective, is unconstitutional, and cannot 
be carried into effect Propr^i Ken, purchase v. Lahoree^ ii, 275. 

2. The resolve of March 19, 1821, rendering valid a certain class of mar* 
riages, so far as it has a bearing upon questions of settlement under the pau« 

Digitized by 



per laws, for expenses, subsequent to its passage, is constitutional. Lettiston 
V. North Yarmouth^ v, 66. 

3. The Stat 1834, c. 91, § 1, providing, that no action should thereafter 
be maintained, to recover damages for the escape of a debtor, except a special 
action on the case, operates upon actions pending, and is not unconstitutional, 
on the ground of its operating retrospectively, or disturbing vested rights. 
7%ayer v. Seutey, xi. 284. 

4. The Stat. 1821, c. 52, § 12, by which actions by heirs, to recover real 
estate, sold by executors, administrators, and guardians, on license, are limited 
to five years from the giving of the deed, applies to sales made prior, as well 
as subsequent, to the act ; and violates no provision of the constitution. Beal 
V. Nason^ xiy. 844. 

5. The constitution does not pn^bit the legislature from passing laws, 
which act retrospectively, not on the right of property, or obligation of the 
contract, but only upon the remedy, which the laws afford, to protect or 
enforce them. Oriental Bank v. Freexe^ xviii. 109. 

6. The substitution of the oath, prescribed in the Revised Statutes, c. 148, . 
for that prescribed in stat 1836, c. 245, where the bond was given before the ^ 
Revised Statutes were in force, is not unconstitutional. Mortt v. Rice^ xxi. 


7. The Stat. 1836, c 233, does not render stockholders in a bank, who had 
become proprietors of their stock, previous to the passage of that act, person- 
ally liable for the debts of the bank. Wheder v. Frontier Banky xxiii. 

8. The Stat. 1839, c. 400, § 3, making stockholders personally liable for 
debts, is c(»istituti<»ial, as applicable to a corporation created in the year 1833. ^ 
Stanley v. Stanley ^ xxvi. 191. 

See Banxbuptct, 12. 


1. The legislature has power to judge, when the public exigency requires, 
that private property be taken for public uses. And it is within the range of 
its powers, to change the course of a public stream, for the public convenience. 
Spring V. Jtussdl^ vii. 273. 

2. It is to be doubted, whether a person, whose private property has not 
been taken from him, and whose rights are only consequentially selected by 
a statute, creating a corporation to open a canal, can contest its constitutional- 
ity. Spring V. KusseU^ vii. 273. 

3. A horse ferry b so far a work of public interest, as to justify the taking 
of private property, for its establishment, by paying compensation to the own- 
er. Day V. I^etson^ viii. 365. 

4. The private stat 1830, c. 89, § 5, authorizing the erectkm of piers and 
wharves, on the land of others, for a ferry, for such compensation, as the 
sessions might assess, not having secured to the owners of the land the right 
to a trial by jury, would afford no protection against a suit at law, for the 
recovery of damages. Day v. Stetson^ viii. 365. 

5. In trespass, quare dausum^ for locating a road through the plaintifT^s 
land, the defendant justified, as agent of the state, and under a legislative 
resolve ; but, it appearing, that the resolve made no provision for a just com- 
pensation to the owner of the property, the justification was insufficient. The 


Digitized by 


158 COHSTirmOKAL LAW, Til. Tin. 

compensation, in such case, should be made, when the property u taken. 
Comins v. Bradbury^ x, 447. 

6. A lot of land, granted to a corporation, for the purpose of erecting an 
academy thereon, and, which was actually used for that purpose, is liable to be 
appropriated to the use of the public, by the location of a road over it BeU 
Jast Academy v. SaJmand^ xi. 109. 

7. Whether it is competent for the legislature, without consent of the ripa- 
rian proprietor, and without compensation to him, to provide for the removal 
of natural obstructions, or the erection of artificial facilities, for the ascent of 
fish, in a stream, where they could not otherwise pass, quaere. CottriU v. 
Myrick^ xiu 222, 

8. But streams, in which alewives, and certain other fish, have been accus* 
tomed to ascend, are subject to the regolation of the legislature. No in- 
dividual can prescribe against this right, which belongs to the public. Cot' 
triU V. Myrick^ xii. 222. 

9. The assent of an individual to an appropriation, by law, of his property, 
to public uses, without compensation, may be proved by parol, or implied 
from his long acquiescence. CottriU v. Myrick^ xii. 222. 

10. If public uses are to be promoted, it is no objection to the power of ap- 
propriation of private property, by the legislature, that it contributes also to 
the advantage of individuals or corporations. CottriU v. Myrick^ xn. 222. 

11. The act of 1807, granting the emoluments, arising from the fisheries 
in Damariscotta river, to Newcastle and Nobleborough, and authorizing them 
to choose a committee, to keep open a sluice or passager way, for fish, and to 
go on, over, or through, any land, or through any mill, or wheresoever it 
should be necessary, f^ the purposes of the act, without beinff considered as 
trespassers, is no violation of the constitution. CoUriU v. Myriek^ xn. 222. 


1. By necessary construction of the constitution of Maine, art. 1, ^ 6, an 
appeal lies, from the sentence of a justice of the peace, in all criminal pros- 
ecutions, to the circuit court of common pleas, where a trial by jury may be 
had. JohneofCe case^ i. 230. 

2. Where, upon the trial of an issue of fact, the evidence, ofiered by the 
plaintiff, is deemed insufiicient to sustain the action, the court may order a. 
nonsuit, and this b no infringement of the Declaration of Rights, ^ 20, which 
secures the privilege of trial by jury. Perley v. Little^ in. 97. 

3. Grand jurors may be examined, as witnesses, in court, to the question, 
whether twelve of the panel actually concurred, in the finding of a bill of in- 
dictment ; under art 1, § 7, of the constitution of Maine. Loto^s case^ iv. 

4. The legislature has a right, to impose reasonable limitations and duties, 
upon the exercise of certain trades and public offices ; and therefore, the stat 
1821, c. 133, prohibiting the sale of liquors, without license, and duties paid, 
is not repugnant to the general rights and liberties, secured by the constitution. 
LunVi casCj vi. 412. 

5. Sections 6 and 7, of stat 1821, c. 124, by which two or more of the 
overseers of the poor, in any town, are empowered to commit to the worit- 
house, persons, who live a dissolute, vagrant life, &c. violate no provision of 
the constitution. NotVe case^ xi. ^08. 

Digitized by 



6. Though a witneM is not bound to crimiiiate himself, yet, if he waive 
his privilege, and consent to testify, in one matter, tending to criminate him- 
self, he must testify, in all respects, relating to that matter, so far as is mate- 
rial to the issue ; but he does not thereby waive his privilege of refusal to re- 
veal other unlawful acts, unconnected with that, to which he Ims testified. 
Low V. MUchellj xvui. 372. 


1. The legtsktiire of the state have no authority, by the constitution, to 
pass any act or resolve granting an appeal, review or new trial, in any 
cause between private citizens, or dipensins with any general rule in fisivor of 
a particular case. Lewis v. Webb^ nu 326. Durham v. LewUion, iv. 140. 

2. The legislature cannot grant divorces, in cases where the supreme judi- 
cial court have jurisdiction ; but the court are not prepared to deny, that the 
legislature have power to grant divorces, in cases, where the supreme judi- 
cial court have not jurisdictbnu Opinion of the Justices^ xtl 479. 


1. All acts of the legislature are presumed to be constitutional, and will 
not be pronounced otherwise, except where their unconstitutionality is free 
from just doubt Lunt^i ease^ vi. 412. 

2. The legislature has the eonstitutioBal power to pass laws, regulating cer- 
tain branches of trade or manufactures, in particular districts only ; and the 
act of March 9, 1832, regulating the survey of lumber in the county of 
Penobscot, in a particular manner, and for dfie appointment of a surveyor 
general for that county, by the governor and council, and forbidding the 
eale or purchase of lumber, in that coun^^, not surveyed by him or his depu- 
ties, is not unconsdtutionaL Pierce v. Kimball^ ix. 54. 

3. A provision in a charter of a corporation, for erecting a house for pub- 
lic accommodation, admitting the members as witnesses, in all cases, in which 
the corporation should be a party, is not unconstitutionaL Cram v. B€mgor 
house proprietors, xii. 354. 

4. It is a settled rule, in construing statutes, that they are to be deemed 
prospective, unless the intention, to give them a retrospective operation, is 

^ clearly expressed. Hastings v. Lane^ xv. '134. 

5. The eonstitutioa does not forbid the exercise of the right, which had 
long before been exercised, under the commonwealth of Massachusetts, of 
regulating the fishery, by acts of the legislature, in rivera not navigable ; and 
the act of 1880, regulating the taking of fish in Sebasticook river, in the town 
of Clinton, is not unconstitutional. Lunt v. Hunter, xvi. 9. 

6. The Stat 1839, c. 366, for the relief of sureties on poor debtore^ bonds, 
in certfun cases, is constitutional. Oriental Bank v. Freeze, xviii. 109. 

7. There is no provision in the constitution, which forbids the legislature, 
to confer on courts martial the power to punish by fine. Rawson v. Brown, 
xvui. 216. Alden v. FitU, xxv. 488. 

8. The acts, incorporating, and conferring powers upon, the Kennebec log 
driving company, to appropriate " prize logs," merely interpose the protecting 
care of the le^lature, by enactments, similar to those respecting lost goods, 
rather tor the preservation, than the destruction, of individual property, so 

Digitized by 



£Bur M it could be dooe^ after the Umb of all the tnoal evidences of it ; and are 
coostitutioDal. Ketmehec log driving Co, v. Bwrrill^ xviii. 314. 

9. The framera of the constitution of Maine, when providing for the con- 
tinuance in office, of judicial officers, had in view those, who, to a general in- 
tent and purpose, were such, and not those, who were incidentsdly and casually 
intrusted with some attribute of judicial character. Morrison v. McDonald^ 
XXI. 550. 

10. The Recorder of the municipal court of Bangor was not, in the sense, 
contemplated by the constitution, a jucUcial officer ; and therefore mi^t be 
removcKi from office, by the governor and council. Morr%$o% v. McDonald^ 
XXI. 550. 

11. The act of 1842, c. 82, ^^ in relation to institutions for savings,^ is not 
unconstitutional. Savings Institution v. Making xxiii. 860. 

12. The Stat. 1888, c 822, making it unnecessary to represent an estate 
insolvent, where all the assets are absorbed in paying expenses of last sickness, 
funeral, and of administration, lb not unconstitutional. Longfellow v. Patrick^ 
XXV. 18. 

18. The legislature cannot create a corporation, and so authorize it to 
build a bridge, extending beyond the limits of this state, as to empower such 
corporation, to collect toll, of a person passing only upon that part, so beyond 
the limits of the state. And mich corporafion cannot recover toll or compen* 
sation, for so passing thereon, without an express promise. Middle Bridge 
Co, V. MarkSy xxvi. 326. 


1. Expenses, incurred for supplies furnished to a pauper, under the provis- 
ions of Stat. 1821, c. 127, providing against the spread of contagious sick- 
ness, are a proper charge against, and may be recovered of, the town, where 
the pauper has his legal setUement. Kennehnnk v. Alfred^ xix. 221. 

2. Expenses, incurred for the protecti<Mi of the inhabitants of the town, 
from the small pox, and to prevent the spread of contagious diseases, cannot 
be recovered of the sick person, but must be borne by the town, thereby to 
be benefited. Kennehunk v. Alfred^ xix. 221. 

8. Expenses for nurses, attendance, and other assistance and necessaries, 
nmy be recovered ; but not those incurred by virtue of c. 127, for the pro- 
tection of the inhabitants of the town, in which such expenses are incurred. 
Kennehtmk v. Alfred j xix. 221. 

See Practice, VIIL 1. 2. 

Digitized by 


COlVTRACTy 1. 163 



(a) Iff OINIRAL. 

(b) Moral and squitablb oblioatiok. 




(a) What will kxcusx performancc. 

(b) What will constjtutc a performakce or breach of ▲ 




(b) Particular agrebme5T8. 


1. A statute, granting coqwrate powers, is inoperative, till it is accepted ; 
but, when accepted, it becomes a contract. Lincoln and Kennebec Btmk v. 
Richardson^ i. 79. 

2. The law will not apply a promise, against the protestation cS him, who 
is attempted to be charged widi it. Jewett v. Covnty of Somertet^ i. 125. 

3. The party, committing a tort, cannot be charged, as on an implied con- 
tract, the tort being waived, unless some benefit has actually accrued to him. 
Wehster v. Drinkwcder^ v. 319. 

4. Where three brothers made a written agreement, not under seal, with a 
fourth, for the support of their parents, fixing the ratio of contribution by 
each, and providing for a new ratio, in case a fifUi brother should be able and 
liable to pay, which was signed by all (he five ; it was held, that the fifth, 
though not named as one of the contracting parties, yet, by his signature, as- 
sented to the terms of the contract, and became liable, if able, to pay his pro- 
portion ; and that his ability and liability misht be tried, in an action of 
assumpsit, upon this agreement. Kendall v. Kendall^ vii. 171. 

5. An authorized committee of a corporation, by written memorandum, 
agreed, that the plaintiff should occupy their hotel, for one year, at a stipulated 
rent, to be paid quarterly, in advance ; and that he should have the refusal 
of it, for the two succeeding years, provided he kept a house satisfactory 
to the committee. Held, that this was a valid contract for a lease, and that 
the corporation were liable to pay the loss, occasioned by their refusal to 
comply with its terms. Stanley v. Hotel Corporation^ xiii. 51. 

6. Parol evidence, that the agreement was reduced to writing by the com- 
mittee, and delivered to the plaintiff, in consequence of his statement to them, 
that he wished to have it in writing, to show to a third person, for a particular 
purpose, but to whom it was not shown, did not destroy the right of action on 
the agreement. Stanley v. Hotel CorporoHoUj xiii. 51. 

Digitized by 



7. Where several individuals subscribed a (und, for the building of an 
academy, with an understanding, among themselves, that they should be paid, 
when there were sufficient funds for that purpose ; and, afterwards, an acad- 
emy was incorporated, and the huilding was conveyed to the corporation, 
without any stipulation, that they should pay for the building ; the corpora- 
tion used the building many years, and, during the time, divided a sum 
among the original subscribers, and afterwards sold the building, and appro- 
priated the proceeds, to the erection of a new building. It was held, that one 
of the original subscribers could not recover of the corporation, any sum, for 
rent of the building, or for proceeds of sale. Eluekul Academy v. With' 
am^ XIII. 403. 

8. Where several parties agree to perform reciprocal acts, for each other, 
the performance, on the one part, being the consideration for the performance, 
on the other, and that the agreement shall be evidenced by writing, under the 
hands and seals of the parties, until it is so signed and sealed, by all the par- 
ties, it is not binding upon either. Goodenoto v. Dunn^ xxi. 86. 

9. M^re a cause of action has accrued to a party, who has signed such 
agreement, independent of the agreement, against a party, who has not sign- 
ed, and he has taken measures to enforce lus claim, the other party cannot 
change the state of the case, and prevent a recovery, by thereafter affixing 
his signature, and seal, to the instrument, without the knowledge and consent 
of the party seeking the remedy. Goodenow v. Dunn^ xxi. 86. 

10. An indenture, in which several persons are named, as parties of the 
one part, though not signed by all, is an indenture of as many, of that part, 
as sign and execute it Scott v. Whipple^ v. 336. 

See Assumpsit, V. (b) 5, 7. 


As to contracUy as affected by the statute of frauds^ See Frauds, statute of. 

1. A promise, to indemnify the plaintiff against the costs, to which he 
might be liable, in an action, brought in his name, for the benefit of the de- 
fendant, for a debt supposed to be due, is good. Knight v. Sawin^ vi. 361. 

2. If a man is lawfully arrested, and offers to give such bond, as will en- 
title him to a discharge, which vs refused, and, from fear of further unlawful 
detention and imprisonment, an obligation is given by him, it may be avoided 
for duress^ Whitefield v. LongfeUow^ xiii. 146. 

3. But, if such person act freely and voluntarily, though under such un- 
lawful detention, the obligation is valid. Whitefield v. Longfellow^ xiii, 

4. A contract, for the sale of cord wood, less than four feet long, is not 
void, for that cause, under stat. 1821, c. 160. Coombs v. Emery ^ xiv. 404. 

5. A contract, by a person, to collect the taxes, in a town, for a fixed 
compensation, on being chosen sole collector and constable, is a legal and 
valid contract Cro%dd v. New Portland^ xv. 28. 

6. A contract, by a guardian, to sell the real estate of his ward, when he 
has no authority to make the sale, is illegal and void, though in writing. 
Worth V. Curtis^ xv. 228. 

7. And if a guardian, with others, who are tenants in common with the 
ward, contract in writing, to convey land, at a stipulated time, " if the guard- 
ian can lawfully sell and convey the property, belonging to his ward,*^ the 

Digitized by 


coimucT, II. 167 

contract is not binding upon either of the promisers, if the guardian have no 
power to convey, within the time. Worth v. Curtis^ zv. 2^. 

8. Where the charter of a bank provides, that " no part of the capital stock 
shall be sold or transferred, except by execution or distress, or by administra- 
tors or executoi^, until the whole amount thereof shall have been paid in,^^ a 
contract to convey shares, to be carried into effect, when but fiAy per cent, has 
been paid m, is illegal and void. Merrill v. Call^ xv. 428. 

9. A contract, made by one of five members of a committee, chosen by a 
parish, to build a churchy in the name of the whole, is not binding on the 
corporation ; and so, not on the other p^yrty. Adams v. HiU^ xvi. 215. 

10. A contract in writing, made afterwards, before the work was complet- 
ed, by individual members of the corporation, wherein they agree to secure 
the payment for the amount of his contract, one half, when the work is com- 
pleted, and the other half, in sixty days thereaAer, is not a collateral, but an 
original promise, and the labor, in completing the work, is a sufficient consid- 
eration therefor. Adams v. HiU^ xvi. 215. 

11. A false representation, relating to the income of real estate, made to a 
perscM), takmg a lease thereof, may invalidate the contract, so far, as to dis- 
charge him from payment of more than the rent was reasonably worth, though 
he did not repudiate the contract immediately, on a violent presumption of 
fraud, but waited, until it would fully appear, whether there was fraud or not ; 
and would be a g[)od defence to an action, to compel a further execution of 
such contract Irving v. Thomas^ xviii. 418. 

12. Fraud will not avoid a contract, except at the option of the party de- 
frauded ; and, to rescind a sale of goods, for false pretences, the party de- 
frauded should offer to the purchaser the notes, taken on the sale, or have 
them ready to be given up, at the trial, and before verdict Ayers v. Hewett^ 
XIX. 281. 

18. A contract, made by selectmen, under the following vote, viz. ^' That 
the selectmen receive written proposals, for the support of the poor, for one 
year, and that they contract with some suitable person, for that period, and 
report at the adjournment of the meeting,^^ is bindmg on the town, thou^ it 
provide for the relief of paupers belonging to other towns, falling into distress, 
in that town ; and make provision for the expenses of litigation, respecting 
Ihe paupers of said town ; and such contract would be binding on the town, 
without a formal acceptance thereof, by vote. Davenport v. HcUlowell^ x. 317. 

14. A contract by a married woman, for the sale of her real estate, though 
made with the assent of her husband, and for a valuable consideration, b void 
in law, and will not be enforced in equity. Lane v. McKeen^ xv. 304. 

15. Where a town agent, without authority, contracted to give a person a 
good and sufficient deed of a school lot, ^^ provided the town get liberty from 
the legislature to sell the same^^; if not, to deliver up certain notes, received 
as consideration, and to pay a certain sum, as damages ; and the town, with- 
out authority from the legislature, authorized the agent to give a deed, pursuant 
to the ccHitract, and the agent made and tendered a deed, which was refused ; 
it was held, that the votes of the town were no sufficient ratification of the 
contract of the agent, and the town was not liable, and that, if the town would 
ratify the contract, it was their duty to obtain authority from the legislature to 
sell ; but, not having done so, the notes, taken by the agent, were without con- 
sideration, and void. Wolcott v. Sirout^ xix. 132. 

16. A contract, to pay to another a certain sum, if the other would not bid 
against the first, at an auction, is void. Gardiner v. Morse^ xxv. 140. 

See Husband and Wife, IT. 1, 2. 

Digitized by 




(a) In «k2«eral. 

(b) Moral amd c^citablx oblioatiok. 

(c) Other cohsioeratioiis. 

(d) Want or failure of coksioeratiok. 

(a) In general. 

L A promise, by a third person, to indemnify an officer, Tot neglecting 
his duty, in the service of a precept, is void, for the illegality of the consid* 
eration. Hodsdon v. Wilkint^ vii. 113. 

2. If a sale be made, without warranty or fraud, and the reasonable ex- 
pectations of the purchaser, as to quality, are disappointed ; yet, if he receive 
the article, without objection, he is liable for the price agreed, (roodhme v. 
Bulman^ viii. 116. 

3. Whether a vote, by a town, to indemnify a collector of taxes, for dama- 
ges previously sustained by him, in consequence of an illegal assessment of 
taxes, is supported by a sufficient consideration, and constitutes a binding con- 
tract, quaere. Page v. Franl^forty ix. 115. 

4. Where one cut logs, upon the land of another, without license, and sold 
them, the purchaser knowing the facts, and expressly agreeing to take them, 
subject to the claims of the true owner, it was held, in an action for the price, 
that the purchaser could not avail himself of the want, or unlawfulness, of 
consideration, in defence. Baker v. Page^ xi. 381. 

5. The defendant gave D. a permit, to cut l<^ upon his land, for an 
agreed price, per thousand, the lumber to be holden, for payment of stump- 
age and supplies. D. employed the plaintiff, to cut, under the permit, and, 
aAer the plaintiff had labored, two months, the defendant agreed, in writing, 
to pay him his wages, out of the proceeds of the liunber, when sold. It was 
held, that the promise was binding on the defendant, though there was not 
timber enough to pay the stumpage and supplies. Warren v. Thacker^ xii. 

6. An admission, in a contract, in writing, that it was made for a valuable 
consideration, is, prima faeie^ evidence of sufficient consideration. Whitney 
V. Steams^ xvi. 394. 

7. Where it is the custom of an insurance company, to dispense with the 
signature of the assurod, to the premium note, until af\er the policy is record- 
ed, the omission to sign the note, when the risk is taken, will not avoid the 
contract, for want of consideration. Warren v. Ocean Ins, Co. xvi. 439. 

8. Where one party agrees to pay the other, certain sums, at certain fixed 
times, in consideration of which, the other agrees to perform an act, the 
promise of one party is a sufficient consideration for that of the other. Bab- 
cock V. Wilson^ xvii. 372. 

9. The execution and delivery, by a child, to his father, of a relinquish- 
ment of all claim to the father^s estate, on receiving a note against a third 
person, indorsed by the father, is a good consideration for such indorsement 
Weston V. Highly xviii. 281, 

10. Where the purchaser of goods has never been molested, in the enjoy- 
ment of his proper^, and no other claimant has appeared, he cannot defend 
against an action for the price, by showing how the vendor obtained his title, 
or that it is defective. Kennebec log driving Co. v. Burrill^ xviii. 314. 

11. An agreement to sell, is a sufficient consideration for an agreement 
to purchase. Appleton v. Chase, xix. 74. 

Digitized by 


COMTRACT, in* 169 

12. A (Sector of tazesv in the sale of lands of non-resident proprietors, 
can give a deed, only to the highest bidder ; and, if he undertake to deed to a 
third person, on his agreeing to take and pay the amount bid by the highest 
Indder, such agreement would be without coosidenition, inasmuch as the deed 
would be inoperative. Keene v. Houghton^ zn. 968. 

13. An agreement, by the owner of an execution against the inhabitants 
of a town, £at if th^ would at once assess the amount inquired, and collect 
the same, he woold niake a oertain discount, is founded on sufficient consider- 
atkxL Baileyviik v. LoweH, zz. 17a 

14. The ifflsignment of a bond is a good consideration for an express prom- 
ise, by the obli^, to an assignee, to perform, or to pay. Warren v. Whed- 
er, zxi. 484. 

16. Where the pfauntiff was bound, by a special contract, to support all the 
paupers of a town, for one year, and had received payment of the amount 
due, by the terms of his contract, but made a claim upon the town, for the 
support of a pauper, as not being included in the contract, and the town^ with- 
in the year, from the time, when the contract went into operation, passed a 
vote, to pay the plaintifl^ for supporting the pauper, this last year ; it was held, 
that the town ooukl make no defence, on the ground of want of consideration. 
Bean v. /ay, xxui. 117. 

16. An agreement, to delay the collection of an execution against one, is 
sufficient consideration for a promise, by another, to pay the amount thereof. 
BuiuU v. Babcoek^ xtv. 188. 

17. At common law, it is not essential, that the consideration for a written 
promise should appear in the writing ; it may be proved by parol ; and all the 
circumstances should be taken into view, in determining, whether the consid- 
eration is good. Cummings v. Dennett^ xxvi. 397. 

See Contract, IL 10. 

(b) Moral and equitable obligaiion. 

1. Where three brothers made a contract with a fourth, for the support of 
their parents, stipulating the ratio to be paid by each, and providing for a new 
ratio, in case a fiAh brother should be able and liable to pay ; which was 
signed by all the five, it was held, that the fifth was bound by the contract, 
when of sufficient ability, and that the contract was founded upon sufficient 
consideration. Kendall y. Kendall^ rii. 171. 

2. Where one person has voluntarily received a benefit from another, not 
gratuitously bestowed ; or has been the occasion, without excuse, of loss or 
injury to another, there arises a moral obligation to make compensation ; and 
this is sufficient consideration, to support a promise. Pamham v. CPBrien^ 
xiiL 475. Warren v. Whitneif^ xxiv. 661. 

3. A contract, void by the statute of frauds, is not a legal consideration for 
an express promise, unless the other party has been induced thereby to per- 
form, in part, or incur expense, in preparations to perform, in which case, it 
would form a sufficient consideration. FarrUiam v. CPBrien^ xxii. 475. 

4. A promise to pay a debt, voluntarily ^fecharged, is not binding, for want 
of a legal consideration. Warren v. Whitney^ xxiv. 661. 


(c) Oflur'coniideTaiifme. 
1. No actbn lies, to reoover money, subscribed for the establishmeirt of an 

* ^* Digitized by 


170 CONTaACTy IU« IT. 

academy ; the trustees not having expended money, or done any other act, 
as a consideration, or upon the faith of the promise. Foxcrofi Academjf ▼• 
Favor, iv. 382. 

2. A demise in writing, not under seal, of certain premisesi, for a stipi:dated 
term, is a sufficient consideration for an express promiie, in the same writing, 
by another party, to pay rent therefor. Hill v. Woodman^ xiv. 88. 

3. Where one has an interest in land, and procures it to be conveyed to 
another, on his parol promise, to sell the land, and pay over the piDceeds of 
the sale ; thb constitutes a good consideration for the promise. LinseoU ▼. 
Mclntire, xv. 201. 

4. Where real estate is conveyed to trustees, to be held for the benefit of 
stockholders, in shares, to be transferred by certificates, the transfer of shares 
is a sufficient consideration for a promise, to pay a sum of money therefor, 
though the project should fail, and the shares prove of no value. Gore v. 
Mason, xviii. 64. 

5. And, if the mode of transfer is by a certificate, signed by the trustees, 
president, and treasurer, lind there be no president and treasurer, the transfer 
is sufficient, if signed by the trustees. Gore v. Mason, xviii. 84. 

6. Where the plaintiff had conveyed land to the defendant, and, as part of 
the consideration therefor, the defendant agreed to pay a claim of S. D., of 
about $150, on condition, that the wife of the plaintiff* would, within six 
months, release her right to dower, this would be a sufficient consideration for 
the promise, though the wife had no right to dower, and though the claim of 
S. D. amounted to #200. Turner v. Whidden, xxii. 121. 

See Frauds, Statute of, II. (b) 17. 

(d) Want, or failure of consideration. 

• iV In all simple extracts, evidence of the consideration may be received, 
in an action between the original parties. Folsom v. Mussey, viii. 400. 

. 2. Where a whaff was demised, to hold for ^\e years, for a stipulated rent, 
payable quarterly, without any agreement, by the lessor, to make repairs, and, 
alter the execution'of the lease, and before possession taken by the lessee, a 
large portion of the wharf was destroyed, through natural decay, and the les- 
see ]Qequested the lessor to make repairs, and, on his neglect to do so, refused 
to tak^ possession, or pay rent ; it was held, that the lessor was entitled to re- 
cover the rent agreed on. Hill v. Woodman, xiv. 38. 

3. A contract, in writing, to convey lands, at a fixed price, and within a 
specified time, on the payment of a certain sum, where nothing was paid, or 
agreed to be paid, by the other party, to obtain such contract, is void, for 
want of consideration. Bean v. Burhank, xvi. 458. 

4. If the holder of a note, then due and payable, take a new note for a less 
sum, whereon the same person only is liable, payable in 30 da3rs, and agree, 
that, if the smaller note be paid at maturity, the large note shall be dis- 
charged, the contract is void, for want of consideration ; but, if another per- 
son be liable on the smaller note, the contract would be binding. Jenness v. 
Lane, xxvi. 475. 

, See Attachment, V. (c) 1. 

1. The balance of authorities seems to be in favor of the proposition, that 

Digitized by 


coirriiACT, IT. V. 171 

an alteration in a bond or contract, if made f\raudu1ent1y, though immaterial, 
will avoid the instrument ; though it would be otherwise, in case of a deed. 
BarreU v. Tkomdike, i. 73. Bracketi v. Mauntfort, xi. 115. RoUins 
r. BariUtty xx. 319. 

2. But, where the principal, in a bail bond, after it was signed by the sure- 
ty, before delivery, erased the name of the sheriff, as obligee, and inserted 
that of the oonstabte, who served the precept, at the suggestion of the con- 
stable, this did not avoid the bond, as to the surety. Hme v. Ru$s^ i. 384. 

3. The addition of a date, to an indorsement of partial payment, on a note, 
is not an alteration of the instrument, to afiect its validity. Hotoe v. Thomp' 
«o», XI. 152. 

4. If a replevin bond, made to one obligee, be altered, af\er its execution, 
and made pajrable to another, without authority from the parties, the alter- 
ation will avoid the bond. DoUner v. Norton^ xvii. 307. 


1. If the vendor would rescind a contract, for the sale of goods, and re- 
claim them, on account of fraud in the vendee, it must appear, that deceptive 
assertionB, and false representations, were fraudulently made ; the mere in- 
solvency of the vendee is not sufficient, to avoid the sale. Cross v. Peters^ 
I. 876. 

2. And, to rescind a contract, for fraudulent representations by the vendor, 
in the purchase or exchange of goods, it is not sufficient, for the injured party 
to give notice to the other, to call on him and receive his goods, but he must 
return them to the party defrauding him, before a right of action will accrue. 
Norton v. Youngs iii. 30. Ayers v. Hewett^ xix. 281. 
shall^ XXI. 122. Stinson v. Walker, xxi. 211. 

3. A. gave a deed of a piece of land to B., in excha 
but, before the delivery of the carriage, B. discover 
fraudulent representations, respecting the land, and 
carriage, and tendered him back the deed, not havbg 
however, forcibly took away the carriage, and sold it to i' 
the fraud. Afterwards, B. obtained possession of the 
to deliver it to C. ; and it was held, that B. had a right to : 
and retain the carriage. Herrick \* Kingsley, xii. 278. 

4. What is, or is not, a reasonable time, within which a party may rescind 
a contract, where no time is fixed by its terms, is a question of law ; and, 
where there was no evidence, that so long a time was necessary, it was held, 
that two and a half months was beyond a reasonable time. Kingsley v. 
WaJlis^ XIV. 57. Wingaie v. Kingy xxiii. 35. 

5. Where one exchanges a chattel, previously mortgaged by him, without 
diacloeing the fact, the other party has a right to regard it as fraudulent, and 
may avoid it, at his election. But, if he choose to rescind the contract, he 
must rescind it wholly ; he cannot reclaim his property, and, at the same time, 
consider the contract in force, for the purpose of recovering damages, /tm- 
kins V. Simpson, xiv. 364. 

6. Where, by an agreement, the defendant was to give to the plaintiff a 
bond, or a deed, of certain land, upon the first payment being made, and 
satisfactory security for the residue, the plaintiff^ having made the first pay- 
ment, cannot rescind^ the contract, and recover back the money, on the ground, 
that the land was subject to incumbrance, the bond providing for its removal. 

Digitized by 



ftDd the plaintiff not having made the stipulated aecurity for the remaining 
pa3rmeDt8. Apphton v. Uhase^ xiz. 74. 

7. A ccmtract cannot be rescinded, on account of fraud, m obtaining it, 
unless by mutual consent, if circumstances be so altered, by a part exeeution, 
that the parties cannot be put in statu quo. If rescinded at all, it must be 
in toto, PoUer v. Tiicomb^ zxii. 300. 

8. If a party would rescind a contract, on the ground of fraud, it must be 
done within a reasonable time. Wingate v. King^ zxiii. 35. 


1. If a party, having the right to repudiate a ccmtract, because it has not 
been performed, in a reasonable time, does any act, which amounts to an 
admission, that it still exists, he cannot, afterwards, for that cause, treat it as 
void. Brvdey v. TibheU, vii. 70. 

2. Where a person undertook to build a road, for the inhabitantB of a 
town, for a stipulated sum, one half to be paid, when the work was complet- 
ed, and the other half, in a year aAer; and when the road was nearly 
completed, the to¥m made the first payment ; it was held, that, after the expira- 
tion of the time, he could recover, on a quantum meruit^ for so much, as was 
completed, making the contract the basis of the value. Hayden v. Madison^ 
VII. 76. 

3. In an action, for breach of contract of marriage, if the defendant would 
rely, for defence, upon a discharge of the contract, it should be explicit 
Boies V. McAUisier, xii. 308. 

4. In a written contract, not under seal, a condition, for the benefit of the 
party charged, may be waived, by parol. Blood v. Hardy ^ xv. 61. 

5. Where an order, in writing, was given, to furnish men, in the wilderness, 
with provisions, evidence, that the men had no means of cocking the pro- 
visions, was held admissible, with other testimony, to show, that the defend- 
ant had waived a strict compliance with the order, and that board was 
intended, or accepted, instead of provisions. Lamb v. Barnard^ xvi. 364. 

6. And a paper, on which was a claim for the board, and also certain fig- 
ures and writmg of the defendant's clerk, was admissible, with other evidence, 
to prove his liability to pay fo!* the board. Lamb v. Barnard^ xvi. 364. 

7. Where one contracts to build a school house, in a particular manner, if 
the committee waive defects in the early stages of the building, the contract- 
or still would not be entitled to recover, unless the subsequent parts of the 
work had either been made conformable to the contract, or had been accept- 
ed. Hill v. Milbum, xvii. 316. 

8. After the committee had pointed out defects, which the contractor refus- 
ed to remedy, and told the committee he should do the work as he pleased, 
no implication could arise, from the subsequent silence of the committee, that 
they waived these defects. Hill v. Milbvm^ xvii. 316. 

9. A committee, to let a contract, for building a road, to the lowest bidder, 
have no authority to accept the road, and cannot waive performance of the 
contract, according to its terms. Allen v. Cooper^ xxii. 133. 

10. If a stipulation be, for the performance of an act, which the party 
alone is competent to perform, and he is prevented, by tlie act of Grod, fnnii 
performing it, the obligation is discharged. Knight v. Bean^ xxii. 531. 

11. The parties to a written contract may, afterwards, by parol, substitute 

Digitized by 


coimucT, n. Vn. 173 

a di£fereDt mode for fulfilling it ; and proof of such fulfilment will be a do- 
fence to a suit, upon the original contract. Richardson v. Cooper^ xxv, 450. 

12. But, mere agreement^ to make the variation, is insufficient, unless per- 
fonnaiice is prevented by the act of the party, attempting to enforce the orig- 
inal obligation. Riehardsau v. Cooper^ zxv. 450. 

13. A waiver of a forfeiture, by failure of the other party to make a pay- 
ment, when due, is no waiver of a right to insist upon the forfeiture, upon 
failure of the party, to make the next payment, according to agreement. 
Halsted v. Little^ xxv. 225. 

14. A ccmtract, made in Massachusetts, between resident citizens thereof, 
whilst the insolvent law of that state, of April 23, 1838, was in force, and to 
be performed there, is discharged, in that state, if the debtor resularly ob- 
tains his discharge, under the provision of that insolvent law. And a dis- 
cbarge there, is also a discharge thereof, in every other state. Stone v. Tib" 
het9, XXVI. 110. 

See Assumpsit, V. (b) 1. 


(a) What will excuse perpormakce. 

(b) What will constitute a perpormaztce or breach of ▲ con- 


(a) What toiU excuse performance, 

1. The town of P., by vote, agreed to accept a pauper, as an inhabitant, on 
condition, that the town of T. would relinquish all demands against the former 
town. It was held, that a delay of nearly six years, on the part of the 
town of T., to accept the proposal, would exonerate the town of P. from its 
liability to fulfil the agreement. Peru v. TWner, x. 185. 

2. Where labor, under a contract, is not performed strictly within the time, 
and according to its terms, yet, if it be done under the eye of one of those, 
contracting to pay therefor, and accepted, this is a waiver of strict perform- 
ance, and payment must be made, in conformity to the contract Adams 
V. Um, XVI. 215. 

3. On a contract, for the delivery of specific articles, in which no place- 
is designated, for the delivery, if the creditor remove from the' state, without 
appointing a place, for delivery, the debtor is not obliged to follow him out of 
the state, to tender the articles, or to request him to appoint a place of de- 
livery. Howard v. Miner^ xx. 325. White v. Perley, xv. 470. 

4. In a contract, for the performance of manual labor, for a stipulated 
time, requiring health and strength, an actual inability to perform the labor, 
arising from sickness, at the commencement of the time, though not continu- 
ing through the whole time, will excuse performance. Dickey v. Ldnscotty 
XX. 453. 

5. The rule, that if a thing become physically impossible to be done, by 
the act of Grod, performance is excused, does not prevail, when the material 
purpose of the contract may be accomplished. If the intention of the parties 
can be ' substantially, though not literally, executed, performance is not ex- 
cused. Wkiie V. Mann^ xxvi. 361. 

6. V^®'® A© holder of a note, overdue, takes from the maker a new note, 
for a less sum, and agrees, that if it be paid at maturity, the maker shall be 
discharged from his liability, on the larger note, the latter cannot avail him- 

Digitized by 


174 COWTRACT, m. 

self of this contract, in defence of the first note, without a strict performance, 
which is not waived, hy the holder, being an inhabitant of another state, 
taking the new note to his place of residence ; nor, by his omission to make 
demand, and notify the indorser, or, to tender the new note to the maker, or 
notify him that he intends to claim payment of the old note. Jennes» v. 
Lane^ xxvi. 475. 

See Equity, V. (c) 1—19. 

(b) What win constitute a perforwtancey or breach of a contract, 

1. To the performance of a contract, to make a warrantee deed of land, 
** free and clear of all incumbrances,^' it is essential, that the grantor have 
the absolute, entire, and unincumbered, estate in the land, at the time of the 
conveyance. Porter v. Noyes^ ii. 22. 

2. And, if the bargainee accept a deed, not knowing, that the land is incum- 
bered, he is not bound by such consent, but may afterwards refuse, on discov- 
ering the incumbrance. Porter v. Noyes^ ii. 22. 

8. Where one contracted to deliver to another an article of machinery, at 
an agreed time and place, and delivered it to the contractee, at a different time 
and place, who received it without objection, the latter will be considered as 
waiving strict performance, and it will be deemed a performance. Baldwin 
V. Pamgtoorthy x. 414. 

4. Where a person contracts with another, to build a mill, the acceptance 
of the mill, after it is finished, is a waiver of any objection to the location, 
or to the time or manner of building. Emerson v. CoggsweU^ xvi. 77. 

5. A contract, to make and execute " a good and sufficient deed, to convey 
the title to said premises,^' is not performed, unless a good title to the land 
passes by the deed. Hill v. Hobart^ xvi. 164. 

6. If a person contracts to build a house, in a particular manner, a sub- 
stantial compliance is not sufficient It must be completed, according to the 
contraot Hill v. MUlbum^ xvii. 316. 

7. Where a person contracts to deliver certain articles, at a specified time 
and place, if the agent of the purchaser receive them, under the contract, 
this will be evidence of performance, by the contractor. Stockwell v. Craig. 
XX. 378. 

8. Where one contracted with another, that his wife should, within six 
months, release, to the other, her right to dower, in certain land, a delivery 
of a deed of release to one authorized to receive it, or to one not so author- 
ized, if the grantee subsequently authorize him to retain it for hb use, is an 
efiectual peHbrmance. Twmer v. Wkidden^ xxii. 121. 

9. Where one, engaged in the freighting business, contracted with a mer- 
chant, to carry freight from one place to another, through the season, occa- 
sionally, as he might want, in the usual course of business, it was his duty to 
have his vessel ready, at the place, to receive the freight, occasionally, accord- 
ing to the well known course of business, but a refusal to go there, at a 
particular time, when requested, and when his vessel was too heavily loaded to 
go to the place, was no breach of the contract. Thwnton v. Foster ^ xi. 

See Equity, V. (c) 18. 
Auction, 1. 
Damaoss, n. (a) 1 — 9. 

Digitized by 


coarsLACT, yuu 175 



(b) Particular aoejebiiemti. 

(c) Ih obvbral. 

(a) Dependent a$id independent stipt^ions, 

1. R. agreed to pay for a quantity of hay, provider L. should pronounce 
it merchantable ; and L. pronounced it ^^ a fair lot, say merchantable ; not 
quite so good as I expected ; the outside of the bundled some damaged by 
the weather." Held, that R. was not bound. Crane v. RohertSy v. 419. 

2. By article of agreement, the plaintiff stipulated to convey, to the de- 
fendant, certain land, if certain notes, given at the same time, should be 
paid at maturity. ]n an action, on one of the notes, it was held, that the 
notes, and the agreement to convey, were independent, and that the suit could 
be maintained, without showing an ofier to convey. Manning v. Brown^ x, 

3. By enforcing payment of the notes, the plaintiff waived his right to avoid 
the agreement to convey. Manning v. Broum^ x. 49. 

4. Where a contract was, on the part of one, to convey, and of the other 
to pay, at a future time, it was held, that the former was bound to convey, on 
demand ; and could not rightfully withhold the deed, until the term of credit 
had elapsed. Eveleth v. SeribneTy xii. 24. 

5. Whether the acts to be performed by the respective parties, in a cove- 
nant or agreement, are mutual, dependent, concurrent, or otherwise, is to be 
determined, by their intention, apparent from the writings, in connexion with 
the subject matter of the contract SewaU v. WilkinSy xiv. 168. 

6. Where, by the terms of a contract, acts are to be performed, by each 
party, at the same time, the contract is mutual, and neither party can main- 
tain an action against the other, without performance, or a readiness and offer 
to perform, on his part But a formal, and technical tender is not necessary. 
Howev. Huntingtany xv. 350. Howe v. MitehelU xvii. 85. Appleton v. 
Cha$ey XIX. 74. Warren v. Wheeler^ xxi. 484. White v. Mann^ xxn. 


7. A promise to pay, upon the performance of an act, by which the party 
is injured, becomes bbding, when the act is performed. HUUm v. SatUhroick^ 
XVII. 303. 

8. Where one party agrees to pay the other certain sums, at certain fixed 
times, in ccKisideration of which, the other agrees to perform an act, leaving 
the time of performance indefinite, the covenants are independent. Babeock 
V. Wilson^ XVII. 372. 

9. But, if the payment of one of the sums depend upon the performance 
of any act, by the other party, as it respects that one, they are dependent 
Babeock v. WHsony xvii. 372. 

10. Where the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a sum of money, 
when he should procure a discharge of a mortgage upon certain land, conveyed 
by the plaintiff to him, and the discharge was procured, and entered upon the 
records, three months before the suit ; it was held, that no special notice of 
the discharge, or demand of the money, was necessary, before commencing 
the action. AUard v Lane^ xviii. 9. 

11. Where the plaintiffs made a special contract, to furnish certain ma- 
chines, according to a model, to be furnished by the defendant, but no model 

Digitized by 


176 CONTRACT, vni. 

was furnished, the plaintifis are not bound to furnish one, and have no right to 
execute the contract, unless it is furnished. Savage Man, Co. v. Armstrongs 
XIX. 147. 

12. Where, by the terms of the contract, the machines were to be deliv- 
ered, at a particular place, the plaintiffs, before they can recover their pay, 
must prove a delivery, at that place. Savage Man* Co, v. Armstrongs xix. 

See Condition, II. 5. 

(b) Particular agreements. 

1. Where one, being about to purchase a lot of land, agreed, that if he 
should complete the purchase, he would convey to the owner of the adjoin- 
ing lot, " thirty feet, always to be kept open, adjoining his house,'' and the 
house stood ten feet from the line of the lot, about to be purchased ; it was 
held, that the thirty feet should be measured from the line of the lot, and not 
from the house, and should extend back to the rear of the lot Bradhury v. 
White, IV. 891. 

2. Where, by a written memorandum, between two citizens of this state, 
the one agreed to deliver, and the other to receive, at Philadelphia, from one 
to three thousand bushels of potatoes ; it was holden, that the seller had the 
option, to deliver any quantity he chose, within the range of the contract, and 
was not bound to make his election, until they arrived at the place of delivery, 
though requested by the other party, aAer the shipment Small v. Qminofs 
If. 497. 

8. Where B. and W. had lent their names to each other, as indorsers of 
notes to a bank, and also had mutual dealings ; and a third person contracted 
to setde the account of B. with W., if there dbould be any thing due to W., 
from him, as well as for notes, held by W., on a specified day : *^ as, also, 
for certain i^tes, which are in the bank, which W. is responsible for, by reas- 
on of lending or exchanging each other's names, as security," it was held, 
that, by the terms of this contract, W. could not claim the amount of hb lia- 
bilities for B.,but only the balance of them, after deducting the amount of 
B's liabilities for him. Quimhy v. Whitney , v. 53. 

4. Where, upon the sale of two contiguous parcels of land, at difierent 
rates, per acre, the agent of the grantor stipulated, in writing, that if either 
parcel, on being surveyed, should be found deficient in quantity, the pur- 
chaser should have compensation for the deficiency, at the rate, at which it 
had been purchased ; and one parcel was found to contain less, and the other 
more, than the estimated quantity, but that the aggregate value remained 
about the same ; it was held, that the purchaser was entided to compensation, 
for the jp&it deficient, without any allowance, for the excess, in the other 
tract Cfool v. Gardiner, vi. 124. 

5. Where the defendant contracted to carry fifty tons of hay, for the plain- 
tiff, to a distant port ; the hay to be delivered at the ship's side ; and, after 
receiving 24 tons, refused to take any more, because the ship was full ; it was 
held unnecessary for the plaintiff, after this refusal, to tender the residue of 
the hay, at the ship's side, in order to entitle himself to damages ; and, that 
the measure of damages was the difference, between the value of the hay, at 
the place, where it was left, and its value, at the port of destination, deducting 
fireight and expenses. Nourse v. Snow, yi. 208. 

6. A contract to pay a certain sum, in the wares of a particular trade, must 
be understood to mean, such articles, as are entire, and of the kind and fash- 

Digitized by 


COHTIUCTi Till. 177 

ion in ordinary use, and not such ai are antiquated or unsaleable. DefmeU y. 
Shorty YU. 190. 

7. Wheve mill k^ were sold, for a price, per thousand, according to the 
quantity of lumber thejr should afterwards be estimated to make ; and there 
was a table or scale of estimation, then in such general use, that the jury found 
the parties to have referred to it, for computing the quanti^, it was held, that 
th^ were bound l^ this scale, though proved to be, in some respects, errone- 
ous. HeaJd v. Cooper^ viii. d2. 

8. And, where the <iteduction, actually made, in such case, to render all 
the lumber equal to merchantable, was found to be too small, yet, having 
been made by mutual consent, and without fraud, and with equal means dt 
iitformation, it was held to be conclusive upon both. HeaJd v. Cooper ^ viu. S2. 

9. An agreement, to sell land, binds the party to execute a proper deed of 
conveyance. Smith v. Haynet^ iz. 128. 

10. By the terms of the act, to divide the town of B., and incorporate the 
town of R., the latter was required to support ^ of the paupers, then belong- 
ing to B. By a second act, the legislature undertook to relieve die new town 
iroitk its liability, for the support of its proportion of the paupers belonging to 
B. Prior to any judicial construction of the latter act, S. contracted with the 
town of B., to support the poor of said town, for one year, he having all the 
income and benefit belonging to them, during said term, and, at the end of 
the year, received the sum stipulated in tiie contract. Afterward, the second 
act was decided to be unconstitutional ; and the town of B., in a suit against 
the town of R., recovered -^ of the expense of supporting the poor, during 
the year of S's contract. Held, that S. was not entitled, by the terms of his 
contract, to the sum, thus recovered by the town of B. Sedgely v. Bowdoin' 
ham^ X. 268. 

11. A. and B. rave to C, a promise, in writing, to indemnify him from all 
claim, which one D. had, in certain lands, conveyed by C. to B. Held, that 
a bond, given by C. to D., for the conveyance of the land to him, was within 
the terms of the indemnity ; and that A. and B. were liable to C, for the 
amount, which he had been compelled to pay to D., in a suit on the bcmd. 
Holbrook V. Holbrook, xi. 361. 

12. But C, prior to his conveyance to B., and the indemnity, having given 
to D. a bill of sale of a bam, standing on the premises, it was held, that it did 
not pass by the conveyance to B., and consequently, C. could not recover 
the value of the bam, which he had paid to D., under the supposition, that he 
was liable to him therefor. Holbrook v. Holbrooke xi. 861. 

13. B., as agent of others, agrees, in writing, to convey to G. and D. or, to 
whomsoever they should appoint, certain lands, on payment of a stipulated 
sum. Afterwards, D. mortj^ges to B., " all his right, title, and interest, in 
the land**; and the mortgage was put upon record. After this, D. makes an 
assignment to G. of all his interest in the contract ; G. knowing the existence 
of me mortgage. G. then pays the stipulated sum to B. and demands a deed 
to himself alone. This B. declines giving, but offers a deed, runing to G. 
andD. Held,— 

That the terms of the mortgage were sufficiently descriptive of D's interest 
in the contract, and would pass that interest : — 

That the contract did not create, technically, a partnership between G. and 
D., so as to preclude the one from bringing a stranger into the concern, with- 
out consent of the other: — 

That B., by receiving the whole purchase money from G., did not thereby 
wahre his claim under the mortgage. Gilmare v. Blacky xi. 485. 

Digitized by 


178 comnuiCTy rm. 

14. A., B., and C. leriad execwtiooi upon the aune tract ; A«, as the pio- 
pmty of J. L. ; B., as the property of J. L., jr. ; and C, as the property of 
both ; and they agreed, that C should bring a suit, ni his own name, for the 
joint benefit of all, to ol>tain possession ; 9ad C. gare to the others a writing, 
reciting these facts, and stating the order, in which the dairas were to 1^ 
paid, from the proceeds of the sale of the land, lo be made, as soon as poesi* 
Ue ; and it was held, that (X assumed the duty of making the sale, and dia* 
tributing the proceeds : — 

That there was sufficient ccmsideration for thb undertaking : — 

That no conveyance was necessary from A. and B., to enable C. to perform 
his contract : — 

That two and a half years was such an unreasonable delay, on the part of 
C, to make sale of the property, as to make him liable to the action of A. 
andB. — 

And, that the interest of A. and B. was sereral, and that they need hot 
join in an action ag^iinst C. Frost v. PaUte^ xii. 111. 

15. A. gave B. and others, a bond, conditioned for the conveyance of a 
township of land, reserving the right to take ofi* 8,000,000 feet of board loss, 
without limitation as to time ; and, subsequently, gave them a deed of the 
land, without reservation, but still went on to cut the timber. While he was 
doing this, B. sold his interest b the land, taking from the purchasers a writ- 
ing, acknowledging, that they took the land, ^^ subject to a permit, from the 
former owners, to A., to cut 3,000,000 feet of timber on tne town^p, the 
present year,^^ and agreeing, that A. might take it, without hindrance from 
them. Held, that A., as between him and the purohasers, was entitled to take 
the timber, and, in taking it, was not limited to the year, or winter succeeding 
the making of the contract Sawyer v. Hammati^ xii 391. 

16« In the construction of contracts, the plain, orAnary, and popular mean- 
ing, of the words used, should provaiU HaweB v. Smithy xii. 429. 

17. Where one was arrested, at the suit of his creditor, and a third person 
agreed, in writing, that, if the creditor would discharge him from arrest, he 
would pay, within sixty days, ^^ all such sums of money, as may now be due 
and owing to him,^^ from the debtor, ^ whether on note or account^^; the 
agreement was construed to embrace only those debts, which were then paya- 
ble. Howes V. Smithy xii. ^9. 

18. The defendant gave the plaintiff a lease of a store and cellar, for five 
years, if not sooner determined by the lessor. The lessee covenanted, not to 
commit strip or waste, but had the right to repair, alter, and improve the 
premises, in such manner, as should be for his interest and benefit, and all fix- 
tures, which should be added to the premises, should remain, and become the 
property of the lessor. But, if the lessor should determine the lease, before 
the expiration of the term, he was to pay for all betterments, made by the 
lessee. The lessee entered, mised the store, one or two feet, finished off a 
victualing cellar, and made other alterations. Held, that this did not consti- 
tute waste, but that, the lessee being obliged to quit, before the expiration of 
his term, was entitled to recover of the lessor the value of the improvements, 
made to the estate. Hasty v. WheeJery xii. 434. 

19. Where a contract for building a dam provides, that the wall is to be 
laid on timber, and projected into the bank, fifteen feet, and the slope of the 
bank, whereon it was to be built, is upon an angle of forty-five degrees, the 
contract is comphed with, if the wall project into the bank fifteen feet on the 
average. Mason v. Bridge^ xrv. 468. 

20. If the contract require, that the dam shall be buih of the ^ same hd|^. 

Digitized by 


ooirnucT, tui. 179 

Ihieknen, and qmiUty of work, as ike <lam bow ntaadinK.^ and the o)d dam 
had never been finidbed, and the fiont part only had been raised to the intend- 
ed height, a fair cooBtniction of the contract vequirea, that the new dam shall 
be made as hig^ as the front of the <M one. Jftfoton v. Bridge^ xit. 468. 

2L Wheie the right to cut and take a certain quantity of standing timber, 
from a tract of land, is reserved, or given, in a written contract, and no time 
when, is fixed by the parties, the Uw piescribes a reasonable time, within 
which it must be done. Sawffer v. HammaU^ xv. 40. 

22. Where a written instrum^it refers to a former contract, and contains 
recitals of its subject matter, and there is a variance between such instruments, 
and between diem and the contract, the recitals are to be explained, and cor^ 
rected, by the contract, to which reference is made. Sawder v. HammaU^ 
xv. 40. 

08. If a contract in writing expressly refer to a written instrument, the law 
will imply, that a party to the contract has notice of the contents of such in- 
strument Sawper v. HamnutU^ xv. 40. 

24. If , by the terms of a contract, each party is to do certain acts, upon the 
happening of a certun event, and no time when, is fixed, performance or 
tender must be made, within a reasonable time af^r the event ; that is, so 
much time, as is necessary, conveniently to do what the contract requires. 
Howe V. Huntington^ xv. 350. 

25. Where a contract was to sell land, at a price, to be fixed by tibird per- 
scnos, one fourth part in cash, on the delivery of the deed, and the remainder 
by securities, on having notice of the price, fixed by such third persons, a de- 
bv of twenty-four days was held to be beyond a reasonable time. Howe v. 
AniingUrtL, xT. 850. 

26. If no place be appointed, in a contract, for the delivery of specific ar- 
ticles, the debtor should ascertun from the creditor, where he would receive 
them ; and, if this be not done, the mere fact, that the debtor had the articles, 
at his own house, at the time, furnishes no defence. Bean v. Simpeon^ xn, 

27. If one contracts to pay a certain sum, per thousand, for timber, to be 
scaled, according to the usual Kennebec survey, by a person, to be appoint- 
ed by the seller, whose survey was to be conclusive, as to the amount, such 
survey will not be conclusive, unless it conform to the Kennebec survey. 
Chase V. Bradley^ xvii. 69. 

28. Where a contract was, ^^ to give a good and sufiicient deed of warran- 
ty, of all and fiiUy the promiser^s interest in M. lot, meaning all and fiilly, the 
same right, title, and interest, deeded to him by P., by deed dated, dec. it was 
held, tl^t the contract required only a conveyance, with warranty, of the 
same title, received from P., and not to warrant that P. had a good title. 
Babcoek v. Wilson, xvu. 972. 

29. Where, in considerati<m of the services of a minor son, for a stipulat- 
ed time, a mechanic entered into a written contract with the father, to learn 
the son a trade, to pay a certain sum, and to board him ; and the minor, while 
on a visit to his father^s house, during the time, was tak^i sick there, the 
master is liable to the father, for the board of the son. Emmons v. Lord, 
xvui. 851. 

80. If evidence of usage, in the place, where the contract was made, that 
die master, under such circumstances, was liable for the minor^s board, during 
his sickness, be admitted, at the trial, being consistent with the contract, such 
admission is no cause for a new trial. Emmons v. Lord, xvni. 351. 

Digitized by 


180 COfMTKAGTi Tin. 

81. Where pTemises are leased, for diree years, at a rent of eight hfmdred 
dollars, yearly, and the lessee agrees to pay the rent, semi-annually, it is net 
a semi-annual, but an annual rent ; and the pa3rment of 940D, at ^ ezpira* 
tion of the first six months, is to be considered a part of the yearly rent, and 
not a payment for a specified number of nsoDtha. Irvi$tg v. • I%oma$y xvuu 


92. Where, by the terms of a contract, ^ plaintiff was to deliver papei^ 
hangings, of a certain description, on board a Gardiner steamboat, at Boston, 
on her first trip, in April, then next ; for which the defendant was to pay, in 
paper, of a certain quality and price, to be shipped, at Gardiner, on the re> 
ceipt of the paper-hangings ; upon the shipments, by each party, according 
to the contract, the goods sent are at the risk of the party, to whom they are 
shipped. Barry r. Palmer^ xix. 803. 

88. The stipulation, in the contract, that the plaintiff was to be paid, on 
the receipt of the goods, at Grardiner, determined only die time of pa3rment, 
but did not impose the risk of the transit upon the plamtiff. Barry ▼. Fabm^ 
er, XIX. 808. 

84. If the goods were not all sent at one time, nor in season, as required 
by the contract, but were received, as sent, and paid for, it is a wairer of that 
part of the agreement, by which the entire quantity was to be shipped, by a 
fixed day. Barry v. Paimer^ xix. 808. 

85. Under a contract, by which the pbintiff nadertoc^ to build the walk of 
a brick house, for the defendant, by the 17th of September, and the defend- 
ant was to procure the joiner work to be done, and the plaintiff to do the 
plastering, as soon after, as the joiners shoukl have it ready ; it was held, that 
the work was all to be completed before the end of the year ; but, that the 
plaintiff, having built the walls, by the 17th of September, and the defendant, 
not having completed the joiner work, before the close of the year, had no 
cause of complaint, against the plaintiff, for not fulfilling the contract, on his 
part. Atkinson v. Rrown^ xx. 67. 

86. If a party accepts an agreement, from which he 4s to derive a benefit, 
when he shall lutve performed an act, on or before a certain day ; such ac- 
ceptance is equivalent to an affirmative agreement, on his part, to perform 
the act, by the time stated. RoberU v. Marston^ xx. 275. 

87. Where a contract, made at Augusta, stipulated for the delivery oi 
merchantable clapboards, at Providence ; and it did not appear, but that clap- 
boards, which were merchantable at Augusta, were also merchantable at 
Providence; testimony was admissible, to show, that the clapboards were 
merchantable at Augusta. Stochoell v. Craig^ xx. 878. 

88. Where the defendants, by contract in writing, undertook to clear the 
plaintiff, ^ from all liabilities, tax, or assessment, that have, or may arise, 
from his share in the scythe factory," (an unincorporated company) it was 
held, that the defendant was bound to indemnify the plaintiff from his legal 
liabilities ; and that, if he should be compelled to pay company debts, he 
should first seek his remedy over, against his associates, for all, except his 
share, and, for the whole, if there was sufficient company property. Ziom- 
hard V. Fiske^ xxiv. 56. 

89. The defendant gave bis note to a manufacturing corporation, in con- 
sideration of the written agreement of A. to procure the obligation of the 
treasurer, for certificates of two shares of the capital stock. A. obtained the 
obligation of the treasurer, to deliver certificates of the shares, on payment 
of die note, and requested the defendant to call at his house and receive it. 
Held, that die obligation of A. was a sufficient consideration for the note ; 

Digitized by 



and dMrt no tender of die tnMorer^s oMigation «m ntummij ; and that ^ 
eeiHMtion of payment of ^ note, tberein insertedt waa not ineooaiatent with 
A*8 engagement Sae9 Mtm. Co. r. Whitnep^ yii. 9M. 

40. If a contract be, for the delhrery of an article, existing at die time, in 
the condition, in which it is to be delivered, it should be regarded as a con* 
tract for a sale, but if labor and skill are to be applied to existing materials, 
it is a contract for die manuihctaie of the article to be delivered. HigM v. 
B^pJey, xuL 187. 

41. Where a contract was, diat the plaintiff should cut and haul sound 
timber, suitable for boards, at an agreed price per M., ^^ the dmber to be scal- 
ed,'* before put into the river, by a certain person selected, such survey, no 
fraud appearing, is conclusive l^etween the parties, to determine the amount 
to be paid for cutting and hauling. RoHmon v. Piske^ xxv. 401. 

42. A contract, to be responsible for the amount, which the promisor 
mi^t recover in an action, then pending, against a third person, is not ful- 
filled or discharged, by an attempt of the promisee to enforce payment of the 
judgment so recovered, by an arrest of the debtor, and his liberation, bv 
ffiving bonds, and a fruiUess attempt to obtain satisfacticm, by a suit on such 
bond. WkUney v. ^earm^ xvi. 894. 

43. Where a levy was made on real estate, and the creditor made a lease 
thereof to another, for a year, but to be void, whenever the land should be 
redeemed, the rent to be paid quarterly ; and die lessor assigned the lease to 
a third person, who was to account to bim for the rent, received under the 
lease ; and, at the end c^ the second quarter, the land was redeemed iVom 
the levy ; but the lessee paid rent to the assignee, for three quarters ; the 
lessor could not recover, from the assignee, the rent for the third quarter. 
Somihard v. Parker^ xxvi* 214« 

See Sale, II. (d) 2. 

(c) hi gmeral. 

1. Where, in a petition for a road, die particular courses, between the two 
termini, were expressly designated, at the time of the signature; but after- 
wards, the petition was amended, by striking out the intermediate courses, 
and praying for the location of a road, between die termini, in such direction, 
as the locating committee should think expedient ; it was held, that the aher* 
ation absolved firom the contract those petitioners, whose private interests it 
mig^t materially affect Jeweti v. Hodgdon^ iii. 103. Jtwett v. Comfortk^ 
in. 107. 

2. Money paid, on a contract for a deed of land, to be given, aAer pay* 
m^dt of certain other sums, at specified times, cannot be re c overed baoky if 
the other payments be not made. Rounds v. B^MeTy iv. 454. 

3. The hx loci applies, only to the interpretation, or validity of contracts ; 
and not to the time, mode, or extent, of the remedy. Judd v. Porter^ vii. 
887. WkUe V. Perley, xv. 470. 

4. Therefore, a discharge, under the insolvent laws of another state, of 
which both the parties were citizens, releasing the person from arrest, but 
not impairing the contract itself, cannot adect any remedy pursued in this 
state. Judd v. Porter^ vii. 837. 

5. Where the inhabitants of the town of C. contracted with A., to give 
him the use and occupancy of a certain farm, during the lives of his father 
and mother, and, at their decease, give him a deed thereof, if he would sup* 

Digitized by 


18t oonrmACT. tui* 

port his fkdwr and modier, and an idiotie brolber, during tiioir nainrml Uvesf 
It was held, that, not having been made with A., and hSs assigns, and croat* 
ing, as it did, a personal trust, the contract was not assignable. Clinton t. 
Fly, X. 292. 

6. A. agrees, b^ bond, to conrey to B. a veesel, on payment of du«e notes, 
the first, payable m one year ; B. ^ves to A. a written promise, to deliver to 
him a load of hard wood, within thirty days, towards the first note, and to re- 
deliver the vessel to A., on failure to deliver the wood, <»r pay the notes, aa 
they fall due, or to furnish security for the value of the wood, or the notes, at 
the option of A. The wood was not delivered, and, in for^ days, a small 
payment was made on the first note ; and, before the expiration of a year, 
the vessel was accidentally lost, in possession of B. Held, that the pa3rment 
was to be considered, as made on account of the wood ; and that the acceptp 
ance of this payment, af\er the thirty da3r8, was an assent, that B. might re- 
tain possession of the vessel ; and the re-delivery was ezciued ; and, that A. 
could maintain an action against B., only for the difference, between the pay- 
ment, and the value of the wood. lAndsey v. Gordon, xiii. 60. 

7. Courts will give effect to contracts, however imskilfully drawn, if the in- 
tention of the parties can be understood, and they can be enforced, without 
violating the rules of law. Patrick v. CfroM, xiv. 233. 

8. And where a contract, for services, is so uncertain and unintelligible, 
that it cannot be understood, the law will imply a promise to pay the fair vUue 
of the services. Cohh v. Stevens, xiv. 472. 

9. A contract, to do a certain thing, involves an undertaking, to secure 
and use efiectually all the means, necessary for that purpose. Savage v* 
Whitaker, xv. 24. 

10. Where a contract was made, in a foreign province, to be perfcnrmed 
within this state, the laws of this state are to govern, as to damages, in the 
absence of proof of the foreign laws. White v. Perley, xv. 470l 

11. If a promise be made, out of the United States, by a foreigner, to aoe 
living within this state, to deliver specific articles, on a fixed day, and no 
place is designated for delivery, it is the duty of the promisor to ascertain, 
from the promisee, the place, where he will receive the articles. White v. 
Perley, xv. 470. Howard v. Miner, xx. 825. 

12. Where a party, receivmg specific articles, promises to re-deliver them, 
cm a certain day, or pay an agreed price therefor, if he fail to deliver them, 
an acti<Hi may be maintained, to recover the price, without a prior demand. 
White V. Perley, xv. 470. 

13. Where, by the terms of a contract, one party was to perform certain 
labor, and the other was to pay therefor, a sum of money, in a certain month, 
an action, commenced on the last day of that month, is prematurely brought, 
though the plaintififmade a demand, on the same day, previous to suing out 
the writ Harris v. Blen, xvi. 175. 

14. Where a contract refers to another paper fqr its terms, the eSeot m 
the same, as if the words of the paper, referred to, were inserted in the con- 
tract Adams v. HiU, xn. 215. 

15. Whether the contract of one, who engages to be responsible for another, 
is to be regarded as original and joint, or as collateral, depends upon the in- 
tention of the parties, appearing from the nature of the contract, and the lan- 
guage. Norris v. Sjpencer, xnii. 824. 

16. Where a written contract is, in form, between two, and signed by the 
parties, and, at the same time, a third person adds, " I agree to be security 

Digitized by 



lor the pioiiuBert is the abore contract,^ with his wgnatoret ^ is holdea aa 
a joint pronuBer. NorrU r. Spencer^ zviii. 834. 

17. In the conatroction of contracti, the language uaed inuat be limited, by 
the sabject matter of the contract, and with reference to known usages, con* 
nected therewith. LUtle/ield t. Winslow^ xiz. 394. Robituon v. FMe, 
xzY. 401. 

18. A promise, to pay for goods, is original, and not merely ccrflateral, 
where the goods are furnished, on the credit of the promiser ; and the right 
of the creditor, to recover against such promiser is not impaired, by hb Dre* 
sentment of his bill, for the payment of the goods, to a third person. Ho- 
wums V. Lambardy xxi. 908. 

19. Although it is the duty of the court, to put die construction on the 
language of the contract, when ascertained ; yet, if there be any controversy, 
as to its precise terms, d)is is a question for the jury, under proper instruc* 
tions, as to law. H&nums v. lAmUHtrd^ xzi. 308. 

20. Where an agreement has been reduced to writing, purporting to be, 
between certain individuals, but not signed by all the parties, their rights must 
depend, not, upon what they considered them to be, but, upon the applica* 
tion of legal principles, to the facts proved. Agricultural BmUc v. nurr^ 
XDv. 256, 

21. In giving a construction to an instrument in writing, the intention of 
Ibe parties, to be collected from the whole instrument, is to be carried into 
efiect, although a hteial construction of a nngle clause, considered without 
lefeience to the others, would lead to a 'difierent result Chase v. Bradley^ 
xxn. 531. 

See Bills, &c. I. (e) 4. 


See Mortgage, V. (d) I. 
Surety, UL (b) 1 — 4 


See Deed. 

See Bond, II. 2. 

Digitized by 


164 cearMUTioH, i. 



Ai to Banking corporations^ See Bank. 


1. A statute, granting corporate powers, k inoperatiTei till it is accepted. 
Lincoln 4" Kennebec Bank t. Richardeon^ i. 79. 

2. If the charter of a corporation be expired, it may be revived, in all its 
original force, bj a subsequent statute ; and this is merely a revival of die 
former corporation, and not the creation of a new one. Lincoln 4* fioaie- 
hee Bank v. Rickardeon^ i. 79. 

3. Where the persons, named in an act of incorp<mition; have held meet- 
ings, adopted by-laws, chosen officers, and done other corporate acts, in con- 
formity to the charter, the existence of a company, capable of taking and 
holding property, may be inferred, without a legal record of the first meeting, 
and a formal acceptance of the charter. Trott v. Warren^ xi. 227. 

4. Corporations, originating, according to the rules of the common law, 
must be governed by it, in their organization, and the exercise of its powers ; 
and, when one claims its origin from such a source, those rules must be re* 
garded, in deciding upon its legal existence. Penobscot Boom v. Lmnmm^ 
xvi. 224. 

5. The existence, powers, and capacities, of corporations, created by the 
legislature, must depend upon the act, by which they are created. Penobscot 
Boom V. Lamsony xvi. 224. 

6. The grant of corporate powers to one person, and his associates^ and 
successors^ does not require of such person, ttiat he should take associates, 
before the act would take effect, or corporate powers be exercised, but confers 
upon him alone, the powers of the corporation, and his acts, widiin the grant 
of powers, become the acts of the corporation. Penobscot Boom v. Lamson^ 
XVI. 224. 

7. The acceptance of the charter may be presumed, from the exercise <^ 
the corporate powers, therein conferred. Penobscot Boom v. Lamson^ xvi. 224. 

8. The dissolution, of a corporation, can only take place, by act of the 
legislature, where that power is reserved, or by a surrender of the charter, 
which is accepted ; or, by a loss of all, or an integral part of its members, so 
that the exercise of powers cannot be restored ; or, by forfeiture, declared by 
judgment of court Penobscot Boom v. Lamson^ xvi. 224. Hodsdon v. 
Copelandy xvi. 314. 

9. If the legislature repeal the charter of a corporation, in accordance 
with a provision in the charter, a creditor of the corporation can interpose 
no valid objection thereto, on the ground, that it would prevent the prosecu- 
tion of a suit, which he had commenced, to recover a debt due to hun, from 
the corporation. Read v. Frankfort Bank^ zxiii. 318. 

See Contract, I. 1. 


Digitized by 




1. Under stat. 1838, c. 325, the dtlo to shares in a bank remain in the orig- 
inal proprietor, after an assignment thereof, and notice to the bank, until the 
entry has been made upon the books of the bank ; and may be holden, 
against such assignee, on an attachment, made aAer such notKO, in a suit, by 
the bank, against such assignor. Fiske v. Carr^ xx. 301. 

2. A person becomes legally entitled to shares in a bank, by having them 
transferred to him, on the books of the bank. The certificate of ownership is 
but additional evidence of title. Agricultural Bank v. Burr^ xxiv. 266. 
AgricuUural Bank v. Wilson^ xxiy. 273. 

See Contract, H. 8. 

Husband and Wife, HI. 6, 7. 


1. Whether a duty, imposed by law, upon a corporation, b merely direct* 
ory, or is essential to the enjoyment of some of their rights, is to be deter- 
mined, by its nature and object, and by what may be understood to be the 
intention of the legislature. Middle Bridge v. Brooks^ xiii. 891. 

2» A corporation is not bound, by the declarationB, or acts, of indiridual 
members thereof, made or done, at a time, when diey were not acting, as 
agents of such corporation. Ruby v. Abyninian Society^ xv. 306. 
• 3. In an action, by a corporation, the defendant cannot take advantage 
of any abuse or misuse of the corporate powers, not applicable to the ques- 
tkm in ccmtroversy ; or object, that no mode of service, or attachment, or 
means of redress, or relief, is provided. Boom Corporation v. Lamaon^ 
xn. 224. 

4. Where the treasurer of a corporation was authorized, by vote, to hire 
money, on such terms, as he should think was most conducive to its interest, 
to meet certain acceptances, by the defendant, of company drafls, upon him ; 
it was held, that, by this vote, the treasurer had authority, to raise money, and 
to indorse drafts, drawn by himself, to accomplish that object ; and that the 
acceptance of such draft, by the defendant, one of the directors, who was 
present at the meeting, when the vote was passed, and who was to be benefit- 
ed thereby, precluded him from disputing the authority of the corporation, to 
pass such vote. Bel&nap v. Davis^ xix. 455. 

5. Where a crime or misdemeanor is committed, under color of corporate 
authority, the individuals concerned, and not the corporation, should be indict- 
ed. State V. Great Works Co., xx. 41. 

6. A corporation, with power to erect a mill-dam, on their own land, across 
the head of Little River Harbor, ¥dth flood gates, for the ^* passage of gondo- 
las and boats, at high water,'* may erect their dam across the head of the 
harbor, though it may not only be below high water mark, but across a part 
id the chaimel below, where the tide ebbs and flows. Parker y. Cutler 
miU-dam Co., xx. 353. 

7. The words, ** on their own land,'' in the act, were not inserted, to fijc 
the place of building, but, merely to exclude the inference, that the corpora- 
tion were authorized, to take the land of others. Parker v. Cutler mUUdam 
Co., XX. 353. 

8. The corporation, acting within the powers granted, is not liable for any 
ti^ury, sufiered by an individual, by alteration of the flux and reflux of the 
tide. Parker v. Cutler miU'dam Co., xx. 353. 


Digitized by 


186 coBPOULTioif) m. it. 

9. If an incorporated company, by their agent, drew a bill upon their 
treasurer, and indorse the same, a demand upon him, and his refusal to make 
payment, have the efiect, upon the company, of demand and notice, to 
charge them, as indorsers. Commercial Bank v. St. Croix Man, Co., xxiii. 

10. If the agent of an incorporated company be authorized to issue nego* 
tiable paper, indorsees, not privy to its origin, would not be bound to examine 
into the transaction, from which the note or draA originated, but would have a 
right to presume it was drawn, in pursuance of authority. Commercial Bank 
V. St. Croix Man. Co. xxiii. 280. 

11. The acceptance of a draf\, by the treasurer of a corporation, without 
evidence of authority, does not render the corporation liable thereon. Atkin* 
$an V. St. Croix Man. Co. xxiy. 171. 

12. Where, by the uniform practice of an insurance company, a deviation 
from the risk, assumed by the policy, is waived, by the president, for a com- 
pensation agreed upon, and a waiver and assent, with the terms thereof, are 
written across the policy, without any new signature, it is the act of the cor- 
poration, and binding upon it, though not recorded. Warren v. Ocean Ins. 
Co. xvi. 439. 

See Action on ths Cass, 8. 
Assumpsit, V. (a) 3, 4, 13. 
Booms, 1,3,7,8, 10, 11. 
Tax, L (a) 2. (b) 1, 2, 3. 


1. Where the directors of a corporation have power to bind it by their 
contracts, that power may be exercised by a majority, but not by a minority. 
Cram v. Bangor Houu^ xii. 354. Trott v. Warreny xi. 227. 

2. Any verbal order or direction, in which a majority of the directora con- 
curred, will be binding on the corporation, though not entered on the records 
of the directors. Cram v. Bangor Houee^ xii. 354. 

3. Where tenants in common of land, on petition, were incorporated, for 
the purpose of erecting a public house thereon, the character of the property 
was thereby changed, from real to personal ; and the owners held as corpo- 
raton, subject to 5ie rules and regulations, prescribed in the act Bangor 
Home V. ainekleyy xii. 385. 

4. The act of incorporation contained the following provision : — " Nor 
shall the proprietor of any share be liable, in his person or property, for any 
tax, assessment, or demand, beyond his interest m said corporation ; though 
every share shall be perpetually pledged, and holden, to the corpcnration, 
for all the assessments made, and all debts due thereto.^' Held, that assump- 
sit could not be maintained, to recover the amount of an assessment ; and 
that the only remedy for non-payment was, by a sale of delinquent proprie- 
{ore* shares. Bangor House v. Hinckley^ xii. 385. 

5. If a corporation assent to a sale of its property, by one of its members, 
and to a distribution of the proceeds of sale, among the shareholders, each 
may recover his proportion thereof, in an action against the holder of the 
money. Hodsdon v. Copdand^ xvi. 314. 

6. The private property of stockholdere, in corporations, created after Feb. 
16, 1836, excepting banking corporations, is not made subject to attach- 
ment, on a writ against the corporation. The creditor must obtain judgment 

Digitized by 


IT. 187 

agUDst tiie oorponilioii, before he can have his remedy againtt stockholdera. 
Drimkwater v, roriUand Marine Railway, xtiii. 85. Langley v. LUtle, 
xzTi. 102. 

7. In an action, brought by a banking corporation, in the corporate name, 
if the defendant calls one of the stockholders of the bank, as a witness, he 
may legally refiise to testify in the cause. Bank of Oldtoton v. Haulton, 
XXI. 501. 

8. The Stat 1886, c. 283, does not render stockholders, who had become 
proprietors of their stock hi a bank, before the passage of that act, personally 
liable for the debts of the bank. Wheeler v. Frontier Bank, xxiii. 808. 

9. The Stat. 1831, c. 519, § 28, gives a remedy, only to creditors of a 
bank, as holders of its bills, or otherwise, and not to the stockholders, against 
the directors, for losses, arising from their official mismanagement Rich v. 
Shaw, XXIII. 848. 

10. Individual members of a corporation have no right, without authority 
from the corporation, to call the agents or officers thereof to account, or to 
make settlements widi them, for money of the corporation, alleged to be in 
their hands. Hersey v. Veazie, xxiy. 9. 

11. If die defendants in a bill in equity, as agents of the corporation, have 
acted fraudulently towards it, the wrong is primarily committed against the 
corporation ; and, until the corporation shall have been shown to be incapable, 
or faulty, no corporator can assume to obtain redress for such wrongs. Her* 
9ey v. Veaxie, xxiv. 9. 

12. The directors of a corporatioD have no power to make a donation 
from, or to misappropriate, its funds, in violation of the laws and rules, regu- 
lating its mode of action. Frankfort Bank v. Johnson, xxiv. 490. 

13. Where a corporation organized, on the 20th of March, and again, on 
the 4th of June, following, and a stockholder, who became a creditor of such 
corporation, in the intervening time, consented to the new organization and 
to have the stock divided anew, and took shares in the new stock ; it was 
held, that he did not thereby forfeit his claim against the corporation, unless 
it appeared, that he intended to relinquish such claim. Longley v. Longley 
Stage Co., xxiii. 89. 

14. In actions, by or against quasi corporations, as towns, parishes, ^. 
which have no corporate funds, each inhabitant, or corporator, is a party to 
the suit, because his private property is liable to be taken, to satisfy the judg- 
ment Adams v. Wiscasset Bank, i. 861. 

15. But, in case of banking, and other like corporations, no property is 
liable to be seized, except the corporate property ; and hence, a writ, against 
a bank, in which a deputy sheriff is a stockholder ; may be served by another 
deputy of the same sheriff. Adams v. Wiscauet Bank, i. 861. 

16. A member of a corporation, the charter of which provides for the 
admission of the members, as witnesses, in cases, in which the corporation is 
a party, cannot object to the admission of the members, as witnesses, in an 
action between him and the corporation. Cram v. Bangor House, xii. 854. 

17. By Stat. 1836, c. 200, ^ 3, corporators are made Individually liable, 
to the extent of their stock, for debts against the corporation, existing at the 
time of the judgments, though the debts were contracted before they became 
stockholders. Longley v. Little, xxvi. 162. 

la The Eev. Stat c. 76, % 18, makes a stockholder liable, only for ** debts 
of the corporation, contracted, during his ownership of such stock.'* Long* 
ley V. Little, xxvi. 162. 

Digitized by 


186 coftPomATioVy it. t. 

19. The cause of actioo, against indiridual corporators, under stat. ISM, 
c 200, did not accrue, until a failure to obtain the amount of the judgment 
against the corporation, from the corporate pn^rty, by a due course of 
proceedings, for that purposQ. And, where the cause of action was not es- 
tablished, by such proceedings, before the Revised Statutes, it is not saved by 
the exceptions in the repealing act ; and can be enforced, only according to 
the provisions of Rev. Stat c. 76. Langley v. Little^ xxvi. 162. 

20. Where an officer, under the provisions of stat 1836, c. 200, returned, 
that he could find no corporate property ^ wherewith to satisfy the execution, 
instead of using the words of the statute, ^' corporate property or estate,^^ it 
was suffici^it Stanley v. Stanley^ xxvi. 191. 

See Assumpsit, I. 8. 
Bank, 27. 


Contract, II. 9. 


1. In an action, brought by the selectmen, treasurer and clerk, of a town, 
as trustees of the ministerial and school funds of such town, it is not neces- 
sary to prove, by record, their regular organization as a corporation, under 
the Stat 1824, c. 254, ^ 2. Dutton Min. and School Fund v. Kendrick^ 
ZJI. 381. Levant Min. and School Fund v. Parks^ x. 441. 

2. Where the court of sessions licensed certain persons, then directors of 
a bridge corporation, to keep a ferry, near where the corporation bridge had 
been carried away, by a fr^et, the income of the ferry to be appropriated, 
for rebuilding the bridge ; and, afterwards, a new and different board of di- 
rectors made a parol lease of the ferry and ferry boat, to the defendant, who 
used them, during the term, it was held, that the corporation could maintain 
an action in their own name. Ticonic Bridge v, Moor^ xiii. 240. 

3. The declarations of a stockholder, or of a director of a corporation, 
are not admissible, in evidence, against such corporation, made, when he was 
not acting, as agent thereof. Polley$ v. Ocean bu. Co. xiv. 141. Ruhy 
v. Aby$9%niaM &ciety^ xy. 306. 

4. Pleading the general issue, admits the legal existence and competency of 
a corporation to bring a suit. Penobscot Boom v. Lanuon^ xvi. 224. 

5. The authority of an agent, to act for a corporation, need not be proved 
by record or writing, but may be presumed, from acts, and the general course 
of business. Warren v. Ocean Ins. Co.^ xvi. 439. 

6. Private corporations, existing, by the laws of other states, have power 
to sue, in their corporate name, in this state ; but their existence must be 
proved, by satisfactory evidence, like any other material facts. Savage Man. 
Co. V. Armstrongs xvii. 34. 

7. A coi^x»ation may sue, in its own name, on a ccmtract, made to an 
agent, for its benefit. Garland v. Reynolds^ xx. 45. Levant Min. and 
School Fund v. Paries^ x. 441. Warren Academy v. Siarrett^ xv. 443. 

8. The bodes of a corporation are the regular evidence of its corporate 
acts ; and, where they are in existence, and can be obtained, parol evidence 
is inadmissible, to prove the acceptance of the charter, or to prove what per- 
sons are members. C(^ v. Collins^ xvii. 440. 

9. But there must be evidence, that they are the books of that corporation, 
and have been kept, as its records ; and that the entries, made therein, have 

Digitized by 



been, by the proper acting c^ker f<Nr that purpoee. Whitman v. GraniU 
Church, xxiv. 236. 

10. A corporation^ bringing a bill in equity, and alleging certain acts to 
have been done, by their committee, whereby a resulting trust was raised, in 
their favor, in certain lands conveyed to a third party, cannot prove the au- 
thority of the oHnmittee, by pard. Methodut Chapel v. Herrick, xxv. 

11. Under the statutes in force, in July, 1841, the books of a corporation, 
80 far as creditors were concerned, were conclusive evidence, as to who were, 
and who were not, to be considered, as stockholders. Parol evidence was 
inadmissible, to show, that a person had ceased to be a stockholder. Stanleif 
V. Stanley, xxvi. 191. 

See Abatement, m* (h) 4. 
Agency, I. 5. Ia. 7. 
Arbitratipn, I. 21. 
Bills, dec I. (c) 3. 
Boom, 5, 9. 

Evidence, VI. (g) 1—6. VII. (c) 16. 
Witness, I. (d) 17. (e) 8, 28. (f ) 10. 



(b) Who is liable for costs, as a partt to the suit. 




(a) In what cases a party will, or will hot recover costs. 

(b) Who is liable for costs, as a partt to thb suit. 

(a) In what cases a party will, or will not recover costs. 

1. An administrator is entitled to recover costs, on scire facias against him, 
to enforce a judgment recovered against him, in that capacity, where the es- 
tate was represented insolvent, af^er the recovery of such judgment, and the 
execution was thereupon returned unsatisfied . jRtn^ v. Burton, v. 45. 

2. Where several issues are tried, in the same cause, some of which are 
found against the prevailing party, he is still entitled to full costs. O^Brien 
V. DwUap, V. 281. 

3. Where the defendant, in a suit, after service of the writ, and before en- 
try of the action, was summoned, as trustee of the plaintiff, and was adjudged 
trustee, upon his disclosure, and paid over to the judgment creditor, all he 
owed the plaintiff, and afterwards pleaded these facts, in bar of the original 
action, he was held entitled to his costs, subsequent to his plea and joinder in 
a demurrer thereto. KUlsa v. Lermond, vi. 116. 

4. On an appeal from a decree of a judge of probatCi establishing the 

Digitized by 


190 GO0T8y I. 

▼alidity of a will, and where the decree is affirmed, the court will, in its di^ 
cretion, refuse costs, if there was reasonable ground for the appeal. Ware 
▼. Wwre^ VIII. 42. 

5. In actions, brought jointly, by the states of Maine and Massachusetts, for 
trespasses upon their common lands, no judgment can be rendered for costs, 
in favor of the defendant. SitUei ¥. Webster^ viii. 105. 

6. Where an action was brought, on a judgment, in full force, then, but 
which judgment was reversed, before the tnial of the action, and die plaintiff, 
consequently, became ncHfisuit, the defendant is entitled to full costs. Fuller 
▼. Whipple^ XV. 53. 

7. Where a plaintiff moved to dismiss his own writ, for want of jurisdiction, 
the defendant is entitled to costs. Reynolds v. Phimmer^ zix. 22. 

8. Where suits were commenced, simultaneously, against the maker and 
indorser of a note, and judgment was obtained against the maker, which was 
satisfied, the indorser is entitled to costs, in the suit against him. Foster v. 
Bufim^ XX. 124. 

9. In a suit a^;ainst the indorser, on several bills of exchange, in some of 
which, usurious mterest has been reserved, but which have been paid by levy 
on the real estate of the acceptor, and judgment rendered only on one, not 
tainted with usury, the defendant is not entiUed to costs. Warren v. Coombs^ 
XX. 139. 

10. In a suit, on two acceptances, in one of which usurious mterest is re- 
served, the defendant is entitled to costiu Warren v. Coombs^ xx. 144. 

11. If a real action abate, by the death of one of the deoiandants, the ten* 
ant is not entitled to costs. Ryder v. Robinson^ ii* 127. 

12. Suits were commenced, simultAneously, against die maker and 
indorser of a note, and, at the first term, the maker was de&ulted, and the 
action, against the indorser, coqtinued, on his motion, to the second term, and 
then defaulted. Before the second term, the maker pays the full amount of 
the judgment against him. Neither party is entitled to costs. Maine Bank v. 
Osbom^ ziiu 49. 

13. Where a decree of the judge of probate, q^pioving a will, was revers- 
ed, on appeal, the appellant is not entitled to costs, by virtue of stat 1621, c 
51, § 64, and costs may be allowed to the appellee, or not, in the discretion 
of the court Dennett v. Doto, xix. 110. 

14. Where a process is void, no costs are allowed. Tibbete v. Shaw^ 
XIX. 204. 

15. The administrate of a deceased respondent is not entided to come in, 
and take upon himself the defence of a complaint f(ur flowing, and recover 
costs. Rackley v. Sprague^ xix. 344. 

16. The restriction of costs, in cases of usury, under Rev. Stat c. 69, § 7, 
is applicable, only in cases, where usury is proved, by the oath of the party, 
as provided in ^ 3, of the same statute ; ana not, where damages are reduced, 
by any other mode of proof. Wing v. Dunn^ xxiv. 128. 

17. Scire facias^ in favor of the state, upon a recognizance, entered into 
by a defendant, to prosecute an appeal, in criminal process, is an action, and, 
if the defendant prevail, he b entiUed to costs against the state, by Rev. Stat 
c. 115. § 91. State v. Harlow, xxvi. 74. 

(b) Who it liable for eosts^ a» a party to the suit, 
1. An administrator is not liable for costs, de bonis propriis, in on action 

Digitized by 


o^wm, u II* 191 

agabst him, m that ciqpacity, if there was good rea«m for him to contest the 
claim of the plaintiff against the estate. Crqfton v. lUUyy vi. 48. 

2. The complainant, alone, in a bastardy process, is liable for costs, though 
the overseers of the poor of the town, where she has her settlement, may 
have advanced money, employed counsel, and otherwise managed the prose- 
cuticm. Dennett v. Nevers^ vii. 399. 

8. In a suit, in the name of A. B., for the benefit of C. D., the attorney 
indorsed the writ, thus : — ** C. D., by E. F., his attorney." On icire fadae^ 
by the original defendant, against E. F., for the costs, recovered, in the origi- 
nal suit, it was held, that me attorney was liable, only for the avoidance or 
inability of the plaintiff, of record ; and that E. F., having indorsed, as at- 
torney for the plaintiff in interest^ only, was not liable. Skillingt v. Boyd^ 
z. 43. 

4. 'rtie equitable assignee of a chose in action, who took the assignment, 
during the pendency of a suit thereon, and afterwards prosecuted it, for his 
own benefit, but failed to recover, is not liable to the defendant, for taxable or 
other costs, of defence. Fteeman v. Cram^ zui. 255. 

5. The Rev. Stat, c 105, ^ 35, authorizing costs to be awarded, in con- 
tested cases, in probate courts, autiK>rizes the allowance, only to the parties 
to the litigation. Reed v. Reed^ xxv. 242. 


1. Where a trustee writ is abated, for the reason, that no trustee lived in 
the county, where it was brought, the defendant is entitled to costs, though 
he lived in the county. Greenwood v. FaleSy ti. 405. 

2. Where a trustee was summoned to appear, out of his county, and made 
a disclosure, before a magistrate of his own county, charging himself as 
trustee, and his disclosure was transmitted to court, he was held entitled to 
retain, out of the effects in his hands, his constructive travel of forty miles, 
three days attendance, an attomey^s fee, and the fee of the magistrate, be- 
fore whom the disclosure was made. Brown v. Atwood^ vii. 356. 

3. If a trustee lives within the county, where the suit is brought, and does 
not appear in court, and submit himself to examination, but makes his answer 
out of court, before a justice of the peace, without written consent of the 
plaintiff, and being about to leave the state, he is not entitled to costs. Nor- 
ris v. HaU^ xyiii. 332. 

4. Where a person, summoned as trustee, appears, and submits to examin- 
ation, at the first term, and \a adjudged trustee, he cannot deduct his costs 
out of tho effects in his hands, unless his costs are taxed and allowed in court. 
Norrie v. JSoiZ, xviii. 332. 

5. On a complaint, under the statute for fiowage, commissioners were ap- 
pointed by the court, who reported the yearly detmage, at $12. The de- 
fendant claimed a trial, by jury, who returned a verdict for 96,87, as the yearly 
damage. Held, that the complainant was entitled to costs. Burrill v. Mar» 
iM, XII. 345. 

6. Where a judgment, in favor of the plaintiff, was reversed, on a writ of 
error, the defendant was held entitled, in scire facias^ to have execution, for 
the amount he had paid, viz. the damages and costs, with the costs of the 
scire facias ; but not his own costs^ taxable against the plaintiff, in the origi- 
nal suit, if he had prevailed. Byrnes y. Hoyt^ xii. 458. 

7. The plaintiff in error is not entitled to coi^, where a judgment of the 

Digitized by 


199 COSTS, n. m. 

court of common plens is reversed, for error m law. Marble v. 8how^ xiy. 

8. Under the stat 1881, c. 520, the creditor was entided to recover of his 
debtor, the expense of citing him, on the execution, to appear before two jus- 
tices, and make a disclosure ; and the certificate of the justice or clerk, in 
the margin of the execution, will authorize the officer to collect such costs. 
Ewtersany. Lombard^ xv. 458. 

9. Where, upon the review of a real action, the kind and improvements 
were, each, estimated by the jury, at a less sum, than by the former verdict, 
and the demandant elected to abandon the land, it was held, that the tenant 
was entitled to the costs of the review. Erving v. Pray^ i. 255. 

10. If the plaintiff in review succeeds, in correcting an error, in die former 
verdict against him, when he was ori^nal defendant, he la entitied fo judg- 
ment, for the costs of the review, tiiough the accumulation of interest may 
have rendered the last verdict larger than the first. Kca>anagh v. Askins^ 
II. 397. 

11. A petition for a review is not within the meaning of the Revised Stat- 
utes, c. 115, ^ 56, but the court has power to award costs for the respond- 
ent, in such case, uiider tho provisions of ^ 88, of the same chapter. Hop' 
ki$u V. Benson^ xxi. 899. 

12. Arbitrators, at common law, have no authority to award costs, unless 
especially authorized. Walker v. Merrill^ ziil 173. Crordon v. Tucker, 
VI. 247. 

13. Full costs are taxable, on reports of referees, unless they otherwise 
decide, in their report, however small the amount recovered. Brown v. 
Keith, iiv. 396. 

14. Where, in trespass, a count, quare clausum, and a count, de bonis as- 
portatis, were joined, and, in the court below, judgment was for the defend- 
ant, and, upon an appeal, W the plaintiff, to tiie S. J. C, the verdict was 
for the defendant, upon the nrst count, and for the plaintiff, for less than $100, 
damages, on the second, it was held, that this was not an action of trespass, 
quare clausnm, within the meaning of stat. 1822, c. 193, § 4, and that the 
defendant was ebtitied to costs, sulraequent to the appeal. Snow v. Hally iii. 

15. Where the tenant, in a real action, in the court below, offered an esti- 
mate of the value of the land, which was not accepted, till after an appeal to 
the S. J. C, the demandant is entitied, under stat 1821, c. 47, to costs, to the 
time of the offer, and the tenant, to costs, subsequent to that time. JEisfme- 
be^ purchase v. Davis, ii. 352. 

See Appeal, III. 1. 
Bankruptcy, 8. 
Bills, Aui. V. 4. 
Equity, II. 19. 


1. Where the plaintiff sued for trespass and false imprisonment, in the C. 
C. C. Pleas, and judgment was rendered against hifn, and he appealed to the 
S. J. Court, where he had a verdict, for only thirty dollars, it was held, that 
he had " reasonable cause for such appeal," under stat. 1817, c. 185. JhuT' 
ner v. Carsley, i. 15. LwU v. Knight, i. 17. 

2. Where an action of assumpsit, in which the ad damnum exceeds seventy 

Digitized by 


COSTS, uju 193' 

dollars, was carried to the S. J. Court, by fictitious demurrer, and, upon trial, 
the plaintifi* recovered less than twenty dollars, he was held entitled to recover, 
as costs, only one quarter the amount of the damages, under stat 1607, c. 123 ; 
and the defendant was entitled to a separate judgment, for his costs, on the 
appeal, under stat 1817, c. 185, and in such case, the court will not certify, 
that there was reasonable cause for such appeal. Boston v. York^ i. 406. 

3. If a verdict be found, for the defendant in replevin, as to a small part 
of the goods, of less value than twenty dollars, he is still entitled to full costs. 
Harding v. Harris^ ii. 162. 

4. If there be a verdict and judgment for the defendant, in the common 
pleas, from which the plaintiflT appeals, and in the S. J. C. recovers less than 
9100, he can have his costs, only in the court below, and the defendant recov* 
ers his costs after the appeal, under stat. 1822, o. 193, § 4. Leigkion v. 
Boodf^ III. 42. 

5. Under stat 1822, c. 193, ^ 4, if the defendant appeal from a judgment 
of the G. C. P., and suffer judgment in the S. J. C, by default, he must pay 
double costs, the damages, recovered below, not being reduced. Me$erve v. 
ElweU, III. 4a 

6. Under stat 1822, c. 193, ^ 4, where the plaintiff appeals from a judg- 
ment of the C. C. P., and, in the S. J. C, had a verdict for less than 9100, and 
the judgment thereon was delayed, by the defendant's motion for a new trial, 
until the interest, on the verdict, increased the amount, for which judgment 
was to l^ rendered, to more than 9100, the plaintiff, and not the defendant, 
was entitled to costs, on the appeal. Boothbay v. Wucasset^ iii. 354. 

7. Where, on a trial in the S. J. C, the verdict is for a greater sum, than 
in the court below, the court, on a hearing, as to costs, will not go out of the 
record to ascertain, whether the damage is increased less, or more, than 
the accumulated interest, on the principal sum in dispute. Baker v. Apple- 
ton^ IV. 66. 

8. If, in assumpsit, the plaintiff ^s damages are reduced below twenty dol- 
lars, in consequence of the defendant's account, filed in set-off, he is still 
entitled to full costs. Hathome v. CatCy v. 74. 

9. Since the stat. 1829, c. 443, if an action of replevin should be originally 
brought in the C. C. P. for goods, of less value than twenty dollars, the plain- 
tiff can recover no more than a quarter of the value, in costs. Ridlon v. 
Emery y vi. 261. Brewer v. Curtis ^ xii. 51. 

10. The stat 1829, c. 444, § 1, inflicting, in certain cases, an addition of 
twenty-five per cent., to the costs, against a defendant appellant, does not 
apply to cases carried up to the S. J. C. by demurrer to the ple^, with the usual 
reservation, to waive the pleadings, and to plead anew. Anonymous^ vii. 

1 1. Where the defendant appealed from a verdict for the plaintiff, in the court 
below, and, in the S. J. C. a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, for a less 
sum, and the judgment was delayed, by the defendant's motion for a new trial, 
till, by the accumulation of interest, judgment was rendered for a larger sum 
tban in the court below, the defendant was still entitled to costs, subsequent to 
tbe appeal, under the stat 1826, c. 347, § 4. Brown v. Attoood^ vii. 356. 

12. In an action on the case, for diverting the water from the plaintiff's 
mill, or for obstructing a water course, the plaintiff is entitled to full costs, 
though he recover less than twenty dollars, as damages. Williams v. Veazie^ 
viii. 106. Simpson v. Seavey^ vin. 138. 

13. Where the sum, justly due to the plaintiff, was more than 9100, but 


Digitized by 


194 COSTS, in, IT, COUHTT. 

the defendant tendered and brought mto die court below a \em mxm^ and a 
verdict was entered, pro forma^ in his favor, and the plaintiff appealed ; and, 
afterwards, took out of court the money tendered ; and, on trial, in the S. J. 
C. the jury found the sum tendered, insufficient, and returned a verdict for 
the plaintiff, for the deficiency, being less than $100; it was held, that the 
defendant was not entitled, by stat. 1829, c. 444, ^ 1, to a separate judgment, 
for his costs. Dresser v. Witherhj ix. 111. 

14. The plaintiff recovered judgment, in the court below, for nearly 1^00. 
The defendant appealed, and, in the S. J. C, the plaintiff recovered only 
$87. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to his costs, ai\er the appeal, as the 
prevailing party. Pollers v. Smithy x, 69. 

15. In an action, brought, originally, in the C. C. P., to recover the pen* 
ahy of not less than $5, and not more than $90, against the defendant^ for 
falsely, corruptly, and wilfully, certifying to a greater number of days* at- 
tendance, as a witness, than he actually attended, and the plaintiff recovered 
less than $20, he was still entitled to full costs. Chesley y. Broum^ xi. 143. 

16. If the plaintiff, in an action of assumpsit, appeal from a judgment, in 
his favor, in the C. C. P., for less than $20, and, on trial in the S. J. C, re- 
cover more than $20, but less than $100 ; under the stat 1829, c 444, die 
plaintiff is entitled to full costs, in the C. C. P., and the defendant to costs, 
m the S. J. C. Duncan v. Sylvester, ziii. 438. 

17. Where judgment is rendered, for the amount of the penalty of a bond, 
being sufficiently large to carry full costs, and execution issues for a mere 
nominal sum, in damages, the plaintiff is still entitled to full costs. Howard 
V. Brown, zxi. 385. 

18. By Rev. Stat c. 96, § 16, as amended, by stat 1842, c. 31, § 8, 
where the plaintiff brings his action, not within the excepted cases, originally, 
in the S. J. C, and does not recover more than $200, damages, he cannot 
recover costs, though the amount be reduced below that sum by a set-off. 
Foster v. Ordway, xxvi. 322. 

See Mills, II. 5. 


1. On an appeal from a judgment of the C. C. P., upon an issue of law, 
single costs only are recoverable ; such issues not being within the provisions 
of stat 1822, c. 193, § 4. Alley v. Carlisle, n. 386. 

2. If judgment be arrested for one bad count, the defendant is entitled to 
his full costs, on all the issues, as the party prevailing. Gilson v. Water- 
house, v. 19. 

3. An error, in the taxation of costs, may be amended, af\er the issuing of 
executicm, if there be any thing to amend by ; it being the misprision of the 
clerk. Wright v. Wright, vi. 415. 

4. The prevailing party will not be allowed to tax costs for witnesses, whose 
testimony would be inadmissible, though summoned under the direction of his 
counsel. Grover v. Drummond, xxv. 185. 

See Practice, VI. 1 — 3. 

1. A committee, appointed by the county commissioners, to contract for 

Digitized by 



opening and making a road, are not agents of the county, and neither their 
contracts, nor the doings of the conunissioners, render the county liable, for 
the expense of making the road ; the only remedy being, by warrant of dis- 
tress, against the towns, through which the road passes. EmerMon v. County 
of WathingUn^ ix. 98. Emerson v. County of Waahington^ ix. 88. Phil- 
brook V. County of Kennebec^ xvii. 196. 

2. If land, o^er which a county road is located, is included within the limits 
of a new county, aAer the acceptance of the road, and before payment of 
damages, the former county is liable to pay the damages. Woodman v. Som- 
erset, xxv. 300. 

3. The remedy, in case of refusal to pay such damages, was by action of 
debt ; and the clerk of the courts has no authority to change the remedy, or 
to bbd the county, by drawing an order upon the county treasurer, for pay- 
ment of the damages. Woodman y. Somenet^ xxv. 300. 

See Assumpsit, I. 2. II. 29. 


1. The acceptance or rejection, of the report of a committee, appointed 
by the county commissioners, by agreement of parties, to appraise damages, 
in locating a highway, is a judicial, and not a ministerial act ; and, therefore, 
mandamus will not lie, to compel the commissioners to accept such report. 
Kennebunk Toll Bridge^ petitioners^ xi. 263. 

2. The county commissioners, on a petition for alterations in an old county 
road, have no power to locate a new road. Livermorey petitioners^ Sfc, xi. 

3. The county commissioners, by the provisions of stat 1821, c. 118, § 9, 
10, and 11, where the selectmen unreasonably refuse, may lay out ways, in 
cases where the way should be adjudged to be of general benefit, as well as 
where it would be for the exclusive benefit of one or more individuals. Lis* 
Ion V. Merrill^ xii. 210. 

4. The county commissioners, under the provisions of stat. 1821, c. 118, 
and 1831, c. 500, § 4, have power to locate a highway from one place to an- 
other place, in the same town. New Vineyard^ petitioners^ xv. 21. 

5. The writ of certiorari will not be granted for every informality or ille- 
gality, in the proceedings of county commissioners. Vassdlhorough^ peti* 
turners^ xix. 338. 

6. By stat 1839, c. 367, the county commissioners were deprived of all 
power to locate roads, except, where the road would extend into two towns 
or plantations, or where a town should have refused to lay out a private way 
to the lots of land, on which the petitioners should live. Pettengill^ petitioner^ 
XXI. 377. 

7. It is improper to call county commissioners out of their county, to answer 
to a petition for a mandamus^ complaining of their acts and doings, as such, 
within their county. Woodman v. Somerset County Com*rs^ xxiv. 151. 

8. The S. J. C. will not order a mandamus^ to county commissioners, to 
correct their decision, as to the taxation of costs, in a case of petition for 
increase of damages, in the location of a road, where the damages had been 
increased, and the commissioners had allowed some items of costs, taxed by 
the petitioners, and disallowed others. Woodman v. Somerset Co, Com, 
XXIV. 151. 

Digitized by 



9. By Stat 1821, c. 118, the county commissioiiers had juiisdielMHi of the 
question, whether a new county road was opened and made, accofding to the 
return of its location ; and their decision is condusivct until vacated % some 
legal proceeding. Woodman v. SomerMCtj xxy. 800. 

10. County commissioners, in deciding in relation to the election of a reg- 
ister of deeds, have no power to go heyond the returns of the selectmen and 
town clerks, to receive evidence, and therefrom decide, that one of the town 
meetings was illegally held, and, for that reason, reje<^ the votes of suck 
town. Bacon v York Co. Com, xxvi. 491. 

See County, 1. 

CoirsTS IN General, 2, 8. 
CoiTBT OF Sessions, '5. 
Mandamus, 2, 8, 4, 6, 7. 
Way, II. (c) 8, 5, 7, 12, la 


1. The right, to issue a capias^ is incidental to the jurisdiction of the court 
of common pleas, in all cases of contempt. Mariner v. Dyer^ ii. 165. 

2. Tlie court of common pleas has no jurisdiction of an offence, created 
by statute, unless it is expressly made cognizable, by that court. Parcher^s 
case^ II. d2l, 

8. By the act, establishing the district court, 1889, c. 878, all its writs and 
processes were required to be under the seal of the court, and, by c. 898, the 
district judge was authorized to adopt seals for the court ; and a writ, sealed 
with a seal, not so adopted, would be quashed, for want of a seal. Tib- 
lets V. Skawy xix. 204. 

4. Where exceptions are alleged, in the district court, those questions alone 
can be presented, which arise at that term. The regularity of proceedings, at 
a former term of the court, cannot be brought in question, by exceptions taken 
at a subsequent term. Loihrop v. Page^ xxvi. 119. 

5. The rule, that it must appear of record, that courts of local and limited 
jurisdiction have verified every fact necessary to give them jurisdiction, is not 
applicable to the district courts of this state. Where, therefore, the process 
contains the proper averments to give that court jurisdiction, and the court 
acts in the matter, the presumption arises that it had jurisdiction. Farrar v. 
Loring^ xxvi. 202. 

6. The district courts of this state are courts of the state, and, when hold- 
en, are courts for the counties, and not for the districts. The allegation, 
therefore, '' for the eastern district," in an indictment found in a county with- 
in that district, is unnecessary. State v. Roberts^ xxvi. 268. 

7. A description of the court, in an indictment, as, the district court of the 
state of Maine, holden at Bangor in the county of Penobscot, for the state 
aforesaid, is a sufficient description. State v. Roberta^ xxvi. 208. 

8. The Stat. 1845, c. 172, does not authorize the transfer of an action from 
the district court to the S. J. C. for the decision of legal points upon an inci- 
dental or incipient question, which may arise ; but only, when questions of 
law arise therein, upon the decision of which, the final determination of the 
c iuse must ultimately depend. Loring v. Proctor^ ixvi. 18. 

9. If the question, in the district court, be a mixed one of law and foot, to be 

Digitized by 



decided by the jury, under proper instnictioDs firom the court, afi to the law, it 
cannot be transferred from that court to the S. J. C. for decision, under stat 
1845, c. 172, imtil the facts have been determined by the jury. Loring y. 
Proctor, ixvi. 18. 


1. In an action of debt, brought by a division advocate, to recover a fine 
and costs, awarded against an officer, by the sentence of a court martial, 

' where the only evidence offered, in support of the action, was, a copy of the 
judgment of the court martial, certified by the adjutant general ; also the pay 
roll of the court, certified in the same manner, and the order of the com- 
mander-in-chief, directing the plaintiff to commence the action, it was held, 
that a nonsuit was rightly ordered. Vose v. Howard^ xiii. 268. 

2. Since the stat. 1837, c. 276, the copy of the record of a court martial, 
certified by the president, and a duly authenticated copy of the order, con- 
vening the court, are conclusive evidence, to sustain an action of debt, 
brought for recovery of a fine, imposed by the sentence of a court martial. 
Rawson v. Brovm, xviii. 216. 

3. The original record of a court martial is admissible, whenever a certi- 
fied copy would be evidence, by stat. 1837, c. 276, ^ 10. Vo$e v. Manly, 
XIX. 331. 

4. It is no good defence in a suit brought to recover a fine, imposed by a 
court martial, that the defendant had never, in fact, received his commission, 
nor been qualified, nor acted under it. Having accepted the office, it was his 
own neglect, if he did not avail himself of his commission. Vose v. Manly, 
XIX. 331. 

5. By Rev Stat. c. 16, a court martial has power to impose a fine, as the 
punishment of an offence, cognizable by such court ; and that power is not 
taken away, by stat 1844, c. 122. Alden v. FUU, xxv. 488. 

See Abatement, UI. (b) 6. 

Constitutional Law, X. 7, 
Evidence, VI. (h) 9, 10, 


1. The power, to commit for contempts of court, is incidental to all courts 
of record. Morrison v. McDonald, xxi. 550. 

2. Each court must, necessarily, be the judge of what it has decided and 
adjudged ; and when it orders an amendment of the record, the presumption 
of other courts must be, that it orders the cleric to record only that, which it 
has decided. Ex parte Limerick, xviii. 183. 

3. But, usually, a court cannot order its clerk, after the close of a session, 
to enlarge a record, so as to embrace matter, which did not appear from the 
documents, or minutes of the court, or clerk, to have been decided. Ex 
parte Limerick, xviii. 183. 

4. Every court of record has power over its own records and proceedings, 
to make them conform to its own sense of justice and truth, so long as they 
remain incomplete, and, until final judgment has been entered. Lothrop v. 
Fage, XXVI, 119. 

Digitized by 


198 oousr or ■■siiovs. — ootskamt, u 

5. Courts have aathority to vacate a find judgment, entered at a former 
term, and all actions, in which final judgment has not been entered, whether 
on the docket of the existing, or4brmer term, are regarded, as within the ju- 
risdiction and control of the Court Lothrop v. Page, xxvi. 1 19. 
See Coubt op Common Pleas, 1. 


1. Under stat 1786, c. 67, it was competent for the court of sessions, in 
the exercise of a sound discretion, to impose, as a condition of the location 
of a new highway, that the expense of its location should be borne by the pe- 
titioners. Patridge y. Ballard^ ii. 50. 

2. Under stat 1822, c. 209, the court of sessions may lawfully extend the 
debtor^s limits, to the exterior bounds of the county. Codman y. Lowell^ iii. 

3. The justices of the sessimis, in fixing the prison limits, perform a ministe- 
rial office only ; in which any peculiar benefit, thereby derived to one of 
them, does not disqualify him to act Codman v. Lowell, iii. 52. 

4. The authority, given by stat 1821, c. 118, § 24, to the court of ses- 
sions to make assessments, for opening and repairing highways, in unincorpor- 
ated townships, relates only to highways, laid out by such courts. Jop y. 
Oxford, m, 131. 

6. Where a member of the court of sessions is owner of land, over which 
a road is to be located, he is disqualified to act in the adjudication respecting 
it State v. Delesdemier, xi. 473. 

6. An assessment of a tax, by the court of sessions, under stat. 1821, c. 
118, § 24, for the purpose of opening and making a road over unincorporat- 
ed land, where no road has been located, according to law, is illegal and void. 
Philbrook v. Kennebec, xvii. 196. 

7. Courts of sessions have no original jurisdiction, in laying out town or 
private ways ; but only appellate jurisdiction, in two cases, viz : where the 
selectmen shall unreasonably refuse to lay out, and where the town unreason- 
ably refuse to accept, a town or private way, and such unreasonable refusal or 
delay should appear of record, in the court of sessions. State v. Povmaly 
X. 24. 

See Febrt, 1, 2, 3, 6. 




1. A covenant, that neither the grantor, nor his heirs, shall make any claim 
to the land conveyed, though not technically a warranty, is a covenant real, 
which runs with the land, and estops the grantor, and all claiming under him. 
Fairbanks v. Williamson, vn. 96. 

Digitized by 



2. The grairtee, in a deed of conveyance, brou^t an action of covenant, 
against a Tcmote grantor, alleging a breach of the covenants of sezin in lee, 
and good right to convey, as well as of warranty. The defendant, in his 
plea, admitted, that he had no right to convey, and that his grantee, under 
whom the defendant claimed, took nothing by his deed. The plaintiff re- 
plied, that the defendant was seized in fact, at the time of the conveyance, 
but not in fee, and in right ; and that such seizin passed by his deed to his 
immediate grantee ; which was traversed, and issue taken thereon ; and it 
was held, that, under this issue, no evidence was admissible, to prove a breach 
of the covenant of warranty ; and that the plaintiif could not recover, on the 
other covenants, in his own name, as assignee, against his own allegation, 
that they were broken as soon as made. Hacker v. Storer^ viii. 228. 

3. In an action for breach of the covenant of special warranty, in a deed, 
the allegation of the plaintiff was, that the defendant had no right to sell and 
convey, in manner and form, &c. Held, that the two covenants were distinct, 
and that the action could not be maintained. Griffin v. Fairhr other ^ x. 91. 

4. Where there is a brecwsh of the covenant of special warranty, no action 
can be mcdntained thereon, in the name of the immediate grantee of the war- 
rantor, if, before such breach, he has c<mveyed the land to another ; this being 
a covenant running with the land. Griffin v. Fairhrother^ x. 91. 

5. A., holding a farm, under a deed of warranty, from B., was sued by C, 
to recover her dower therein ; and during the pendency of the suit, A., sued 
B., on the covenant, in his deed, against incumbrances, and had judgment for 
nominal damages. Afler C^s recovery, and the extinguishment of her right 
of dower, by purchase, by A., he brought another action against B., on the 
covenant of warranty ; and it was held, that the former judgment was no bar 
to a recovery in the latter suit Donnell v. Thompson^ x. 170. 

6. An action may be maintained on the covenant of seizin, in a deed, 
where one conveyed, with covenants of seizin -and warranty, land, which he 
had in possession, but to which he claimed no title. Wheeler v. Hatch^ xii. 

7. If one enter upon land, having a lawful title, and hold, adversely to 
another grantee of the same land, it is equivalent to an eviction ; so that 
the latter may maintain an action against his grantor, upon the covenant of 
warranty, though he have never been in possession. Curtis v. Veerings xii. 

8. A. conveyed to B. in mortgage, with covenants of warranty, and, aAer- 
wards, conveyed the same land to C, without excepting the mortgage. C. 
procured his deed to be first recorded, and held the land, and it was held, 
that A. was liable to B., on the covenant of warranty, and that the measure of 
damages was, the amount due on the mortgage. Curtis v. Leering^ xii. 

9. The location of a road is an incumbrance, for which the grantor of land, 
over which the road is located, is liable upon the covenants in his deed. -Her- 
rick V. Moore^ xix. 313. 

10. A suit, for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment, cannot be 
maintained, without proof of an actual eviction. Boothby v. Hathaway^ xx. 

11. A seizin, in fact, of the grantor, under color of, though without legal 
title, is a defence to a suit, for breach of the covenant of seizin. Boothby v. 
Hathaway J xx. 251. Baxter v. Bradbury^ xx. 260. 

12. If the covenant of seizin be broken, so that the title wholly fails, the 

Digitized by 


900 cormvjLMTj I u. 

law restores to the purchaser the conBideratioa money, with iaierest, unless 
facts and circumstances exist, which would render the rule inequitable, which 
might be considered, by the jury, in estimating the damages. BaMer v. 
Bradbury, xx. 260. 

13. If, after the breach of the covenant of seizin, the grantor takes a con- 
veyance from the true owner, to himself, which enures to his gmntce, by 
way of estoppel, and the latter retains the seizin, he cannot be allowed to re- 
cover back the consideration. Baxter v. Bradbury, xx. 260. 

14. The covenant for quiet enjoyment runs with the land ; and descends to 
heirs ; but not that against incumbrances. Heath v. Wkidden, xxiv. 383. 

15. If a subsequent grantee of a mortgager pays the mortgage, his right 
of action, on the covenant against incumbrances, accrues, to recover the 
amount paid ; but, if he suffers an eviction, his right of action will then ac- 
crue, on the covenant for quiet enjoyment. Heath v. Whidden, thy. 383. 

16. The lapse of twenty years from the time the cause of action arose, for 
breach of the covenants for quiet enjojrment, raises the presumption of satis- 
faction ; but no shorter period would be sufficient, unless the presumption is 
raised, by other circumstances. Heath v. Whidden, xxiv. 383. 

17. In a special action, on the covenants of a deed of warranty, setting out 
all the facts, and alleging a breach of the covenant, against incumbrances, the 
court may permit an amendment, alleging a breach of the covenant for quiet 
enjoyment Heath v. Whidden, xxiv. 383* 

18. Heirs are not liable for breach of the covenant of seizin, in the deed 
of their ancestor, inasmuch as the remedy might be pursued against the ad- 
ministrator, the covenant bemg broken as soon as made. Webber v. Web' 
bcTy VI. 127. 

19. Where the breach of the covenant of warranty occurs more than four 
years afWr administration on the estate of the grantor, the remedy against the 
heirs should be pursued against them within one year aAer it accrues, or 
it will be lost, by the provisions of stat. 1821, c. 52. Webber v. Webber, vl 

See Damages, IL (b) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7^ 8, 9. 


1. A covenant, that the land is free from incumbrance, is broken, by the 
existence of a mortgage, given by the grantor to the grantee ; but, in such 
case, unless the condition of the mortgage is broken, or the mortgage discharg- 
ed, the damages are but nominal. Bean v. Mayo, v. 94. 

2. The word, '* give," in a deed of bargain and sale, in this state^ does 
not import a covenant of warranty. Allen v. Sayward, v. 227. 

3. The heirs of the grantor, in a deed of conveyance, may be liable on 
the covenants, to the grantee, under the stat. 1821, c. 52, § 28, though not 
mentioned in the deed. Webber v. Webber, vi. 127. 

4. The liability of the heirs, on the covenants of their ancestor, is contin- 
gent, depending on the inability of the creditor, from the nature of his claim, 
to have satisfaction, during the existence of an administration. WMer v. 
Webber, vi. 127. 

5. Where one sold all the growing timber, on his land, and covenanted, 
that the grantee should have seven years, to take it off, and aAerwards con- 
veyed the land to a stranger, without reserving the trees, or giving notice of 

Digitized by 



the grant ; it was held, that the sale, alone, of the land, was no breach of the 
covenant, the vendee of the timber not having been molested. Saford v. 
iiitmf, VII. 168. 

6. The plaintiflT covenanted, with the defendant, and others, to cut a canal, 
from Crotched pond to Long pond ; and the defendant and others covenant- 
ed, to sell, to the plaintiff, all iJie pine logs, which either of them should haul, 
or raft, into Crotched pond, for a term of years. In an action on this coven- 
ant, it appearing, that the timber lands of the defendant and others were situ- 
ate on Steams^ pond, two miles above Crotched pond, connected therewith, by 
a canal, which was die only way, by which logs could be floated to a market, 
it was held, that the defendant, and others, were bound to sell, to the plain- 
tiff, logs hauled into Steams' pond, and floated into Crotched pond, as well as 
those, hauled directly into Crotched pond ; and that the covenants were seve- 
ral, and an action could be maintained against the defendant alone. Walker 
V. Webber^ xii. GO. 

7. Where one covenanted to sell and convey a lot of land, for an agreed 
price, to be paid, at a time, subsequent to the giving of the deed, it was held, 
that a tender of a warrantee deed, while the land was incumbered with a 
mortgage, was not a fulfilment of the covenant- Sibley v. Spring, xii. 460. 

8. And the covenantee, in an action on the covenant, was permitted to re- 
cover the value of labor, performed, in part payment for the land. Sibley v. 
Spring, XII. 460. 

9. If a covenant be, by several, with one, and the interest be separate, and 
the performance cannot be made jointly, the covenant is several, unless the 
intention of the parties appears to have been, that each should be bound, for 
the performance of the other. Hcukins v. Lombard, xvi. 140. 

10. If one party covenants to convey land, and the other party covenants 
to purchase, and pay for the same lana, within a certain period, the covenants 
are dependent, and neither can maintain an action against the other, without 
proof of readiness to perform, on his part, at the specified time. Low v 
Marshall, xvii. 232. 

11. The covenant, usually inserted in a collector's deed, that " the taxes 
aforesaid were assessed, and published, and notice of the intended sale of said 
lands given, according to law," is a stipulation, not only that the taxes were 
in &ct assessed, but that the assessment was legally made. Stubbs v. Page, 
u. 378. 


1. Tenants in common, holding under the same deed, are not obliged to 
join, in an action against their grantor, for a breach of the covenant of war- 
ranty. Swell v. Patrick, xi. 179. 

2. In an action of covenant, the plaintiff declared, 1st, for a breach of the 
covenant of warranty, and 2d, for a breach of the covenants of both warranty 
and seizin. On a general demurrer, the plaintiff prevailed ; for, though the 
second count yra.sfelo de se,yet the first, considered independently of the 
second, was good. Swell v. Patrick, xi. 179. 

3. Where one man conveys land to another, and, at the same, time the 
grantee gives a bond to the grantor, that the grantee should reconvey the 
premises, on demand, and should permit the grantor to enjoy the premises, 
until the conveyance back ; the grantee can maintain no action against the 
grantor, on the covenants of the deed. Hatch v. Kimball, xiv. 9. 


Digitized by 




4. Where three convey land, in the same deed, covenanting to warrant and 
defend the premises, against the lawful claims and demands of all penoos 
claiming hy, through, or under them, they are all liable, on the covenant, if a 
legal claim under one of them existed, at the time. Carleton v. Tyler ^ xvi. 

See Heihs, 1, 2, 7. 


L In all criminal prosecutions, an appeal lies from the sentence of a justice 
of the peace to the court of common pleas, for the purpose of a trial by jury. 
Joknson*s case^ i. 230. 

2. If, in a complaint for larceny, made to a justice of the peace, the goods, 
alleged to have been stolen, are described in a schedule, annexed to the com- 
plaint, and not in the body of the complaint, it is bad. Cummings* case^ ui. 

3. The purchaser of a log, illegally taken from a river, without consent of 
the owner, against the provisions of stat. 1821, c. 168, bavins, at the same 
time, full knowledge of the manner, in which it was obtained, is liable to the 
penalty of the statute. Howes v. Shed^ iii. 202. 

4. If goods are stolen, in one county, and carried, by the thief, into another 
and there sold, he may be indicted, and convicted of larceny, in either county. 
State V. DouglaSy xvii. 193. 

5. To maintain an indictment, for the obstruction of a town or private way, 
it must be shown, that the way was laid out and established, pursuant to the 
statute provisions. Proof of a user, for twenty years or more, is not sufficient. 
State V. Sturdivant^ xviii. 66. 

6. In criminal cases, the jury are the judges of the law, as well as the 
feet State V. Snow, xviii. 346. 

7. If persons, innocently and lawfully assembled, afterwards confedemte, 
to do an unlawful act of violence, suddenly proposed, and assented to, and 
thereupon commit an act of violence, in pursuance of such purpose, although 
their whole purpose should not be consummated, it is a riot ^ate v. Snow^ 
XVIII. 346. 

8. -The part}', whose name is alleged to have been forged, is a competent 
witness, upon the trial, in an indictment for forgery. State v. Shttrtliff^ 
XVIII. 368. 

9. To sustain an indictment for larceny, there must be proof, that the goods, 
alleged to be stolen, are the absolute or special property of the person, 
named as owner, in the indictment, and, that a felony has been committed. 
State V. Furlongj xix. 225. Stale v. SomerviUe, zxi. 14. 

10. In an indictment, for stealing three sides of sole leather, the property 
of A. B., where the alleged owner testified that he could not swear positively, 
that he had lost leather, or, that he had not sold the same leather to some 
other person ; this is not sufficient proof of his ownership, to sustain the indict- 
ment. State V. Furlong, xix. 225. 

11. Proof, that the person, charged with a larceny, was poor, and that, for 
years, he had not owned property, to the amount alleged to be stolen ; that 
he made false statements, as to where he obtained the property, and that, 
when selling it, he called himself by a wrong name, and that he did not, or 

Digitized by 


cmimNiL LAW. 903 

could not, give any account, how he came by the property ; though tending 
strongly to implicate his integrity, hsts no tendency to prove the ownership of 
the property stolen, as alleged. State ▼. Farhng^ xix. 225. State v. 3fer- 
rtdfc, XIX. 398. 

12. In a prosecution for larceny, possession, by the accused, of the article*) 
stolen, soon after the larceny was committed, raises a reasonable presumption 
of guilt. State v. Merrick, xix. 398. 

13. If a reasonable doubt is thrown upon a prima facie case of guilt, tlie 
accused is not proved guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt State v. Merrick^ 
XIX. 898. 

14. Where a motion, to quash an indictment, was overruled, and the 
indictment was Ordered to proceed to trial, it was held, that exceptions would 
not lie, to such order. If a motion had been made, afler verdict, and in ar- 
rest of judgment, for cause, and improperly overruled, exceptions would be 
sustained. State v. Souhy xx. 19. 

15. Though exceptions are overruled, the motion, in arrest of judgment, 
may be made, in the S. J. C, and judgment may be arrested. State v. 
&mfe, XX. 19. 

16. The legal possession of goods, stolen, continues in the owner, and 
every mementos continuance of the trespass and felony is, in legal contem- 
plation, tantamount to a new caption and asportation. And therefore, where 
goods were stolen, before the Revised Statutes took effect, and were retained 
in possession of the thief, till after they came into operation, he might be in- 
dicted, and punished, under those statutes. State v. SomervUle, xxi. 14. 

17. By exceptions from the district court, the S. J. C. are not called upon 
to decide any other matter, than the opinion, direction, or judgment, of the 
court below. State v. Somerville, xxi. 14. 

18. On the trial of an indictment, to exclude confessions of guilt, on the 
ground, that they were not voluntarily made, they must appear to have been 
drawn out, by some fear of personal injury, or hope of personal benefit, of a 
temporal nature. State v. Grant, xxii. 171. 

19. Where there arc two counts in an indictment, properly joined, and 
the respondent is found guilty on both, the attorney of the state may, after- 
wards, before judgment, enter a nol, pros, as to one of the counts. State v. 
Bruce, xxiv. 71. 

20. Onthe trial of an indictment, under Rev. Stat. c. 154, ^ 26, for obtain- 
ing property, by means of malicious threats, testimony to prove, that the same 
property was afterwards found in a concealed state, in the dwelling house of 
the accused, is admissible, in corroboration of other testimony. State v. Bruce, 

XSOT. 71. 

21. In such case, the ofience consists, in ^' maliciously threatening,^^ with a 
view to extort money, or some other advantage, or to compel the person, so 
threatened, to do some other act, against his will; and it is immaterial, 
whether the threats produce the designed effect, or not And it is no ex- 
cuse for the person, so maliciously threatening, that the person threatened 
had previously stolen property from him. State v. Bruce, xxiv. 71. 

22. If a warrant is made on the same paper with the complaint, and ex-^ 
pressly refers to it, it is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the 
Rev. Stat c. 171, % 2. State v. McAUister, xxv. 490. 

See CoBPORATioN, m. 5. 

Evidence, H. (b) 9. IV. 19. 


Justice op thx Peace, L (c) 1, 2, 8. 

Digitized by 




1. Whenever an individual insists upon his legal right, to receive sold and 
silver, only, in payment, the law will uphold him, in the exercise of that right, 
however unexpected, or unlike the customary usage, in transacting business 
between parties, in similar circumstances. Lord v. Burhanky xviii. 178. 

2. If a demand, upon a bank, be proved to have been, for specie^ this is 
equivalent to a demand for gold and silver, that being the only currency, 
recognized by law, as legal tender. Brycatt v. DamarUeotta nank^ xnii. 

See Attohney, II. 8. 


See CoNTEACT, Vin. (b) 7. 
Evidence, VI. (b) 2, 3. 



(a) Agaipst ofvickhs. 

(b) Othke ihjuriks. 








(a) Against officers, 

1. In an action against a sherifi*, for returning bail, when no bail was taken, 
the sheriff may be admitted to prove the insolvency of the debtor, and, upon 
this proof, the creditor is entitled to but nominal damages. Eaton v. Ogier^ 
II. 46. 

2. In an action against an officer, for not serving and returning an execu- 
tion, he may prove the insolvency of the debtor, in mitigation of damages, 
though he has not returned the precept, nor alleged, that it was lost. Var- 
rill V. Heald, ii. 91. 

3. Where an officer, having a writ against a person, who had removed out 
of his precinct, falsely returned, that he had led a summons at his last and 
usual place of abode, in B., being his late residence ; and the defendant was 
defaulted, having no notice of the suit, and, afterwards, obtained a grant of a 
writ of review, which he never sued out, but sued the officer, for a false re- 
turn ; it was held, that the officer was not liable for the costs of the application 

Digitized by 


DA1CA0E8, I. 305 

for review, nor for the amount of the originad judgment, till it had been 
proved erroneous, by a successful termination of the action of review ; but 
that, if, on trial, the debt should prove to be due, the officer might be liable, 
for \he original costs. Waterhouse v. (jibsofiy iv. 234. 

4. In an action against an officer, for not serving an execution, the jury 
are to allow the plaintiff only such damages, as he has sustained, by the 
breach of duty, unless the neglect was wilful, with a view to injure the 
plaintiff; in which case, they are to allow him his whole debt. Hodsdon v. 
WUkins, VII. 113. Ware y. Fowler, xxiv. 183. 

5. In order to charge an officer with 30 per cent., interest on moneys col- 
lected by him, and not paid over, on demand, it is necessary, that a demand 
be made, by a person authorized to receive the money, and execute a valid 
discharge. And, where the creditor's attorney of reconi wrote to a third per- 
son, requesting him to make a formal demand of the money, and to take a 
minute of the officer's answer, without saying more, it was held insufficient. 
Btdfinch V. Balch, viii. 133. 

6. Where personal property, attached, has been lost, through the negli- 
gence of the officer, or misappropriated, he is liable to the creditor, for the 
value of the property, at the time it should have been seized and sold, 
on execution, had no such loss or misappropriation taken place. Weld v. 
Greeny x. 20. Franklin Bank v. Small, xxiv. 52. Tukey v. Snith, xviii. 

7. But there are exceptions to this rule ; as, where the officer converts 
the property to his own use, or realizes a greater sum, by a sale thereof, or 
obtains a greater sum, from a receiptor, or from a person, who had tortiously 
taken it from him. Franklin Bank v. Small, xxiv. 52. 

8. In an action of trespass, de bonis asportatis, against an officer, for at- 
taching and removing the property of the plaintiif, on a writ against a third 
person, the measure of damages is, the value of the property, at the time of 
the attachment Smith v. Putney, xviii. 87. 

9. In an action against an officer, for a false return, in certifying, by mis- 
take, that he had lefl, with the plaintiff, a true copy of a notice to appear, 
and submit to'an examination, &^,, under the poor debtor law of 1831, when, 
in fact, there was an error in the copy ; and the mistake was known to the 
present plaintiff, in season to have avoided any inconvenience thereby, at a 
trifling expense ; it was held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only 
such sum, in damages, as would have fully paid him for ascertaining the truth, 
and not damages for having been arrested and imprisoned, on the execution. 
Wright V. Keith, xxiv. 158. 

10. Where the officer arrested the debtor, on execution, who gave bond, 
and was released, but neither the execution nor bond was returned into the 
clerk's office, it was held, that, in an action against the officer, he might prove, 
in mitigation of damages, that the obligors, though approved by two justices 
of the quorum, were insolvent, and unable to pay the debt. Ware v. Fow- 
ler, XXIV. 183. 

11. By the provisions of the Rev. Stat. c. 148,^ 43, the creditor can- 
not recover, of an officer, for inadvertently fixing the penalty of a poor 
debtor's bond, at a greater or less sum, than double the amount, for which 
he is arrested or imprisoned, more than the damage, actually sustained by him 
thereby. Dyer v. Woodbury, xxiv. 546. 

12. In an action against an officer, for neglect of official duty, the plaintiff 

Digitized by 



can recover but the amount of damages, actually sustained. Dper v. Wood 
bury J XXIV. 546. 

See Attachment, V. (b) 12, 13. (c) 4, 9. 
Libel, <Sec., 11, 12, 18, 15. 
Officer, IL (c) 8. 

(b) Other injuries. 

1. A printer contracted to print, for his employer, a thousand copies oT a 
book, and no more, and printed, from the same types, while set up, at the 
expense of his employer, five hundred copies more, for his own disposal ; 
and he was held liable to refund, to his employer, one thhrd part of the ex- 
pense of setting up the types ; no actual damage having been proved. WU" 
li€tms V. Gilman^ iii. 276. 

2. Where one wrongfully diverted water from the plaintiff *s mill, the plain- 
tiff being the lawful owner of the stream, the wrongdoer was held liable, for 
nominal damages, though no actual injury resulted to the plaintiff's mill, in 
consequence of such diversion. Butman v. Hussey^ xii. 407. 

3. Where a toll bridge corporation adopted, as a part of their bridge, a 
way, made by individuals, of a few rods extent, being the only entrance from 
the public highway to the bridge ; and a traveler, passing over this way, to 
the bridge, where he paid toll, had his horse injured, from a defect in such 
way, he was held entitled to recover, of the corporation, the damages sustain- 
ed thereby. Watson v. Lisbon Bridge^ xiv. 201. 

4. And, if the traveler expend money, in a prudent, but ineffectual at- 
tempt, to cure the horse, which finally, died, in consequence of the injury, 
he may recover it of the corporation, in addition to the value of the horse. 
Watson y. Lisbon Bridge^ xiv. 201. 

5k In trover, for a bond, the condition of which was, that, if the plaintiff 
would remove to the town of P., and dwell there, a year, he should have 
certain lands ; and he had not removed thither ; it was held, that the dama- 
ges should be ascertained, by estimating the value of the lands, and deduct- 
ing therefrom, what it would have cost Sie plaintiff to perform his part of the 
condition. Rogers v. CrombiCy iv. 274. 

6. Where goods are illegally sold, for the discharge of a lien, for the 
freight thereof, and the owner, afterwards, obtains possession of them, through 
the purchaser, he is entitled to recover of the seller, in an action of trover, 
only the damages and loss he has sustained, in regaining possession of the 
goods, over and above what was fairly due to the defendant Hunt v. Has* 
kell, XXIV. 339. 

7. In an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close, 
and cutting and taking away timber trees, it is not competent for the defend- 
ant, in mitigation of damages, to prove, that the estate is made moro valua- 
ble, by his labor and expenses, in opening the forest, and making improve- 
ments. Loomis V. Crreen^ vii. 386. 

8. In an action of trespass, for taking a quantity of logs, belonging to the 
plaintiff, he was permitted to recover, under the general averment of dama- 
ges, the profit he would have made, by sawing the timber, and by its appre- 
ciation in price. Bucknam v. Nash^ xii. 474. 

9. Where goods, which had been pledged, were seized and sold, on exe- 
cution, prior to stat 1835, c. 188, and trespass was brought, by the pledgee, 
against the officer, it was held, that the measure of damages was the value of 
t^ property. Soule v. Whiter xiv. 436. 

Digitized by 


DAMA«ity I. n. 207 

10. Trespoflsera are liable for all damages, necessarily arising from their 
acts ; and so, are liable, not only for the materials of a sluiceway to a mill, 
destroyed by them, but also, for the damages, sustained by the owner of the 
sluiceway, in being deprived of the use of it. Hammatt v. Russ^ xvi. 171. 

11. In trespass, for taking away property, the value of the property, at 
the time of the taking, with interest therefrom, is the measure of damages. 
Bratmin v. JokHMon^ xix. 861. 

12. The jury are not to estimate the probable or speculative loss, which the 
plaintiff may have sustained, from the detention of the property taken. Bran" 
nin V. Johuon^ xix. 861. 

13. Where a person receives again property, which had been wrongfully 
taken from him, he is considered as receiving it, as partial compensation for 
the injury, and in mitigation of damages. Merrill v. Howe^ xxiv. 126. 

14. But, in such case, he is not bound to deduct from the amount of the 
injury suffered, more than the amount of the benefit actually received ; and, 
if compelled to pay money, for the recovery of the property, that should be 
deducted from the value received back. Merrill v. ifotre, xxiv. 126. 

15. In replevin, for goods lawfully seized by the defendant, as a collector 
of taxes, where judgment is for a return of the goods, the defendant is en- 
titled to damages, equal to six per cent, on the penalty of the bond. Dore 
V. Hight, IV. 20. 

16. In replevin, no damages can be allowed, where the writ was abated, on 
a plea filed by the defendant, containing no prayer for a return of the prop- 
erty replevied, nor for damages. McArthur v. Lane^ xv. 245. 

17. In an action, by an officer, upon a replevin bond, where judgment had 
been rendered for a return of all the goods replevied, and no return had been 
made, it was held, that the officer was entitled to recover the value of the 
goods replevied, and damages for their detention. Famham v. Moor^ xxi. 

18. In an action of trespass, for demolishing certain dwelling houses, it is 
not competent for the defendant to prove, in mitigation of damages, that they 
were occupied as houses of ill fame. Johnson v. Farwell^ vii. 370. 

19. In an action of trespass, for mill logs, cut upon land of the plaintiff, 
and removed therefrom, to a distance, the rule of damages is, that the plain- 
tiff should recover the value of the logs, as it was, the moment af^er they 
were severed from the freehold, Cushing v. Longfellow^ xxvi. 306. 



(b) Oil COYXKAlITt RBAI.. 


(a) On simple contracts. 

1. Where real estate is sold at auction, and a written memorandum made 
of the sale, by the auctioneer, and a deed tendered to the purchaser, which 
he refuses, the measure of damages, against him, is, the price bid by him, 
with interest ; he still having a right to a deed, upon a new demand. Alna 
V, Plummer^ rv. 258. 

2. Where the defendant contracted to carry fifty tons of the plaintiff's 
bay, to a distant port for sale, and received and carried a part, but refused to 

Digitized by 


906 PAMAOB8, II. 

receive the remainder ; the rule of damages was held to be, the diflerence 
between what the plaintiff received, or might have received, for the hay left 
in his hands, and the price, at the port of destination, deducting freight and 
expenses. Nourse v. SnoWj vi. 208. 

3. If the party, entitled to the benefit of a contract, can protect himself 
from a loss, arising from the breach thereof, at a trifling expense, or with 
reasonable exertions, it is his duty to do so. And he can charge the delin- 
quent party with only such damages, as, with reasonable endeavors and ex- 
pense, he could not prevent Miller v. Mariner'* 8 Churchy vii. 51. 

4. In an action for breach of promise of marriage, the court refused to 
disturb a verdict, in favor of the plaintiff, for 81200, on the ground of its 
being excessive ; the defendant's property being estimated, by the witnesses, 
at from $1000, to $5000. Boies v. McAllister, xii. 308. 

5. In an action for the materials found, and labor done, in building a 
house, and where there had been a contract in writing, which had afterwards 
been departed from, and abandoned, by the parties, it was held, that the price, 
for building the house, was not to be ascertained, from that fiied in the 
written contract ; and that the tetstimony of master builders, who had exam- 
ined the house, and made an estimate of the expense, was admissible, to 
ascertain the amount of damages. Tebhetts v. Haskins, xvi. 283. 

6. In an action on a note, given for specific articles, the measure of dama- 

S» is, the value of the articles, at the time and place for delivery. Smith v. 
erry, iviii. 122. 

7. In an action by an officer, against a receipter, for property attached, and 
lef^ in his custody, the sum, at which the properly is valued, in the receipt, is, 
prima fajde, the measure of damage ; but if it be over valued, it may be 
shown, in reduction of damage. Sawyer v. Mason, xix. 49. 

8. Where one, in consideration of $15, guaranties the payment of the 
note of a third person, for $300, and the guaranty is broken, the note remain- 
ing unpaid, the damages to be recovered are, the amount of the note guaran- 
tied. Cooper v. Page, xxiv. 73. 

9. In assessing damages, for breach of a contract to convey land, the jury 
may find, the marketable value of the land, in money, on the day of the 
breach of the contract, taking a view of all the objects, for which the land is 
desirable, and add interest thereon, from that time. Warren v. Wheeler, xxi. 

10. Where the undertaking of a principal, to repay, to a surety, the 
amount paid by him for the principal, by a levy upon land of the surety, is 
but one implied by law, the surety cannot recover of the principal the ex- 
penses of the levy. Emery v. Vinal, xxvi. 295. 

See Assumpsit, IV. 4. 

Bills, &c. Vm. 1—8. 
Contract, I. 5. 

(b) On covenants real. 

1. Where one received a convejrance of lands, of a part of which a stran- 
ger was seized, in fact, by an elder and better title, and the stranger sue the 
grantee, in trespass, and recover damages and costs against him, he can re- 
cover, of his grantor, only the proportion of the consideration money and in- 
terest ; the damages and costs being recoverable, only when incurr^ in de- 
fending a seizin, which the grantee actually gained, by a conveyance from 
one, who was seized in fact. Cushman v. Blanchard, n. 266. 

Digitized by 



2. Where a deed conveys no seizin in law or in ^act, the measure of dam- 
ages is, the consideration money and interest thereon. Slubbs v. Page^ ii. 

3. If the grantor, in a deed of warranty, had nothing in the estate, at the 
time of the conveyance, but acquires a title afterwards, which enures to the 
grantee; the latter cannot reject the title, and recover the consideration 
money, in an action on the covenant of seizin ; but is entitled to merely nom- 
inal damages, where no interruption of possession has taken place ; and to 
the damages actually sustained, where this possession has been interrupted. 
Baxter v. Bradbury y ii. 260. 

4. If land be conveyed, by deed of warranty, with the usual covenants, 
and the grantee enter into possession, and hold it for nearly twenty years, and 
then purchase an outstandmg paramount title, he can recover, for breach of 
tlie covenant of seizin, only the amount last paid, and interest thereon. And 
this right to recover is not affected by proof, that the rents and profits are 
more or less than the interest on the consideration, originally paid, spring v. 
Chase^ xxii. 505. 

5. In an action for breach of the covenant, in a deed, against incumbrances, 
by reason of a previous mortgage upon the land, if the condition of the mort- 
gage be not broken, nor the mortgage discharged, the damages are but nom- 
mal. Bean v. Mayo^ v. 94. Randall v. Mallett^ xiv. 61. 

6. Where the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff, by deed of warranty, 
certain land, then incumbered by a mortgage, and by an attachment of the 
equity of redemption, and, at the same time, gave a bond, with surety, that 
he would, " within ninety days, cause said mortgage deed to be canceled, and 
all other incumbrances on said land, as, by his deed, he had covenanted," 
and, after the expiration of the nmety days, the plaintiff commenced his 
action on the bond, and, at the time of the judgment thereon for the penalty, 
neither party had removed the incumbrances, but the mortgagee had entered 
into actual possession of the premises, for breach of condition, and the equity 
of redemption had been sold, for a large sum ; it was held, thcU execution 
should issue, for the amount of the conditional judgment on the mortgage, 
and the amount, for which the equity was sold, and interest on both sums. 
Gardner v. Nile*^ xvi. 279. 

7. If an action be commenced, for breach of the covenant, in a deed, 
against incumbrances, before the incumbrance is removed, the plaintiff is 
entitled to recover, in damages, the amount he was compelled to pay for the 
removal of the incumbrance, after the commencement of the suit, if before 
judgment thereon. Kdly v. Low^ xviii. 244. 

8. In an action for breach of the covenant of warranty, in a deed, the 
measure of damages, where there has been an eviction, by judgment of law, 
is, the value of the land, at the time of the eviction, and the expenses incur- 
red in defending the suit, including the fees paid to counsel. Swett v. Pat- 
ricky XII. 9. 

9. The defendant conveyed land to the plaintiff, in mortgage, with cove- 
nants of warranty, and afterwards conveyed the land to a stranger, without 
excepting the mortgage. The latter procured his deed to be first recorded, 
and held the land. Held, that the measure of damages, in an action, on the 
covenant of warranty in the mortgage deed, was, the amount due on the 
mortgage. Curtis v. Deering^ xii. 499. 


Digitized by 



(c) Other covenanti and bonds. 

1. Where a debtor id execution was liberated, on giving a bond, con forminff 
to the provisions of a former law, not then in force, it was held, that the bond 
was gCKxil, at common law ; and, the debtor having regularly taken the poor 
debtor's oath, in the forms provided by the repealed law, the creditor, in a suit 
on the bond, had execution awarded, in equity, for only a nominal sum. 
Wtntkrop V. Dockendorff^ iii. 156. 

2. In an action on a bond, given under arrest, under the provisions of stat. 
1831, c. 520, the damage, actually sustained, is the proper and equitable 
measure of the claim of the creditor. Wilson v. CrilliSy xv. 55. 

3. When a contract is made, to purchase and pay for land, by one paity, 
and, by the other, to sell and convey, on payment of the price, and an action 
is brought against the purchaser, for breach of the contract, on his part, with- 
out tendering a deed, the measure of damages is, the difference between the 
sum, which 5ie purchaser agreed to pay for the land, and the sum, for which 
it might have been sold, on the day for performing the contract. Robinson 
V. Heard, xv. 296. 

4. The Stat 1835, c. 195, is peremptory, that, in all cases of breach of 
the condition of the bond, taken under that statute, the measure of damages 
shall be, the amount of the execution, and fees and costs of commitment, 
with interest thereon, at twenty-five per cent Knight v. Norton, xv. 337. 

5. In an action on a bond with a penalty, judgment is rendered for the 
amount of the penalty, and execution issues for all damages sustained, at 
the time of rendition of judgment Gardner v. Niles, xvi. 279. 

6. Where a sum of money was paid, by a debtor, to the judgment credi- 
tor, while the execution was in the hands of an officer, and directed to be 
allowed thereon, but not indorsed ; and the debtor was afterwards arrested, 
and gave bond, in double the whole amount of the execution and officer's 
fees ; in ascertaining the amount due, in a suit on the bond, the sum, thus 
pcdd, is to be regarded as a pay