HIGHWAY. INDICTMENT. 1. It is not an indictable offence to tear or cut a piece out of a bank note, with intent, with the bill thus altered, and with such piece, together with other pieces of similar bank notes, altered, cut, and torn out, to form other bank notes, with intent to utter the same, and thereby to injure and defraud the company issuing such notes. Commonwealth vs. Hayward. 34 House of Representatives requesting him to file such information, and stated that he filed such information by virtue of the authority of, and in compliance with, the said order, the Court refused to quash the information, as not having been duly filed, considering that it was filed by the solicitor-general er officio, notwithstanding such recital and statement. Commonwealth vs. Fowler. 290 See JUDGMENT. INSOLVENCY. 1. A creditor of a deceased person 2. Where, pending an indictment recovered judgment, and levied execu against a town, the name of the town was tion on the land of the deceased; after altered by the legislature, the Court refus- which the estate was represented ined to quash the indictment for that cause. solvent, and proved to be so; the same Commonwealth vs. Phillipsburg. 74 creditor filed her claim with the com3. A feme covert is not indictable for missioners, had it allowed, and received an assault and battery committed in of the administrator nearly the whole of company and by the command of her the dividend awarded her; - her title to husband. Commonwealth vs. Neal & Ur. the land was sustained. Ramsdell vs. 152 Creasey. 170 4. An indictment for unlawful colabitation, under the statute of 1784, c. 40, § 6, is not maintained by evidence of one act of criminal intercourse between a married man and a single woman. Commonwealth vs. Culef. 153 5. The breaking a store in the nighttime is an indictable offence by the statute of 1804, c. 142, § 6. Commonwealth vs. Lindsey. 153 6. One was indicted for a larceny in one county; and the evidence at the trial was, that the goods were stolen in another county, and brought into the county where the indictment was found, by two persons other than the prisoner, who came afterwards and joined them in the possession and disposal of them; -his conviction upon this evidence was held good. Commonwealth vs. Dewitt. 154 See EVIDENCE, 8, 9. INFANCY. INFORMATION. 1. Where the solicitor-general, in an information against one for usurping a public office, recited an order of the 2. A discharge of a citizen of Rhode Island, under the insolvent laws of that state, is not a bar to an action of debt brought in this state against such citizen, upon a judgment rendered in that state, the creditor being a citizen of this state. Watson vs. Bourne. 337 See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &c, 4. INSURANCE. See POLICY OF INSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY. INTEREST. 1. In an action of debt brought by the judge of probate for the benefit of a creditor to an insolvent estate, against a surety in the administration bond, for the sum due to such creditor upon the report of the commissioners and the decree of the judge thereon, the creditor had execution for the sun due, with interest from the time of a demand made on the surety. Heath, Judge, &c., vs. Gay. 371 JOINDER IN ACTION. See ABATEMENг, 2, 3. JOINT-TENANTS. JUDGMENT. 1. Upon an information or inquest of office against the proprietors of a township of land, claiming under a grant from the government, to which was a condition annexed, that the same did not contain more than the quantity of land expressed in the grant or confirmation, it appearing to the Court that the township contained more land than was granted, it was adjudged that the proprietors should hold within certain lines specified, provided that they released to certain settlers within the said lines the lands by them settled upon, and that the commonwealth should be reseised of the remainder. The judgment was holden good, and binding upon the proprietors, and all privies in estate. Cush164 ing & Al. vs. Hacket. See ERROR, 1, 2, 3. 1. To a plea of the statute of limitations, in an action upon sundry promises, the plaintiff replied, that, at the time of making the promises, the parties were in parts beyond the sea; and that he, the plaintiff, was never afterwards within the United States at the same time that the defendant was also within the same, or had any property subject to attachment by the ordinary process of law, until within six years before the comthe replimencement of the action; cation was adjudged bad, and the defendant had judgment. Vans vs. Higginson. MARINERS. See SEANEN'S WAGES. 29 547 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 1. A judgment creditor levied his MESNE PROFITS. MILITIA. Barber 260 1. The commanding officer of a milltia company, authorizing the clerk of the company to require of the keeper of a boarding-house, within the limits of the company, information of the names of persons residing with him, in order to their enrolment, must give a special authority for that purpose. Peabody vs. 36 Hayt. 2. An action by the clerk against the keeper of such house, for the penalty for refusing such information, must be in case for a tort, and not assumpsit; it must allege the offence to be against the form of the statute; and must set forth the uses, to which the penalty is Ibid by law appropriated. MILLS. See PLEADING, 2. MINISTER. 1. Lands which had been, before the year 1754, by the original proprietors of a township, appropriated to the use of the ministry in the town, were, by the provincial act passed in that year, concerning grants and donations to pious and charitable uses, vested in the min93 ister of the town for the time being. Brown vs. Porter. MINOR. 1. Where the father of a minor placed him in the service of a master, upon an 533 1. An arrest of a debtor in execution, and a voluntary discharge of him by the officer, without the consent of the creditor, is no bar to an action upon the judgment. Appleby vs. Clark. 59 2. A report of referees and judgment thereon, in an action at common law, in favor of the owner of land flowed by a mill-dam, for damages against the owner of the mill, is no bar to a complaint under the statute of 1794, c. 74;- nor a judgment on such a report on a former complaint under the statute; judgment on a verdict on such a complaint, in which the jury find no damage, and therefore no cause of complaint. Staple vs. Spring & Al. 72 - nor a 3. It is always allowable, and often necessary, to declare according to the legal effect and import of a written contract, rather than in the precise words of the contract. Lent & Al. vs. Padelford. 230 4. A declaration that, in consideration that the plaintiff would do a certain act, the defenaant promised to do a certain other act, with an averment of performance on the part of the plaintiff, is sufficient, without averring a promise by the plaintiff. Lent & Al. vs. Padelford. 230 5. When a matter alleged lies equally in the knowledge of the plaintiff and defendant, an averment of notice is not necessary, as if it be an act to be done by a stranger. Ibid. 6. Where a promise was to do a certain act, or pay a sum of money, and the defendant has not done the act, a special request to pay the money needs not be alleged. See ABATEMENT. DECLARATION. LIMITATION. MILITIA, 2. PARTITION, 2. SEISIN, 3. POLICY OF INSURANCE. Ibid. 1. Insurance was from Liverpool, in Great Britain, to Savannah, in Georgia; the master, after arriving off Savannah River, put away for Amelia Island, in the Spanish dominions, to avoid a seizure, &c., under the non-importation law of the United States; and after learning that he might safely so do, returned to Savannah;- this was held to be a deviation which discharged the underwriters. Breed & Al. vs. Eaton. 21 2. Evidence of custom and usage is useful, in many cases, to explain the intent of parties to a contract; but the usage of no class of citizens can be sustained, in opposition to principles of law; therefore, where insurance was "on cargo from Boston to Archangel, and back to Boston," the assured was holden to pay the whole premium, although no property was returned in the ship; and it was proved to be the universal usage in Boston, where the insurance was effected, to return a portion of the premium in such cases. Homer vs. Dorr. 26 3. Where the supercargo of a ship, captured and libelled as prize, made a reasonable compromise with the captors, giving up a part of the property, and retaining the remainder, it was nolden that the underwriters on the 4. Where a policy of insurance was effected in the names of A, B, and C, on merchandise, of which A owned five eighths, B two eighths, and C one eighth and other policies on the same adventure were afterwards effected by A alone; and it was understood that, if the first policy was appropriated according to the respective interests of A, B, and C, in the subject of insurance, A would be over-insured, and otherwise not; it was holden that A had a right to appropriate the several policies, so as to cover the property belonging to the whole concern; and that the underwriters on the last policy were liable for a loss incurred. Ibid. 5. Insurance was made upon a ship from New Bedford to Charleston, with liberty to touch at Savannah, and at and from thence to a port or ports in Great Britain. To the policy was annexed this stipulation: "In case of capture or detention, the assured shall not abandon short of six months after notice thereof shall be given to the underwriters, unless sooner condemned." While the ship lay at Savannah, a law of the United States imposed an embargo on all ships and vessels for ninety days; and before the ninety days expired, war was declared by the United States against Great Britain. After the embargo took place, the assured gave notice thereof, and in six months afterwards abandoned to the underwriters; the ship having, in the mean time, returned to New Bedford It was holden that the assured was nut entitled to recover for a total loss. Delano vs. The Bedford M. I. Company. 347 upon it, and so the verdict is imperfect, | promise should show that the consider the demandant is not therefore entitled ation has been executed; nor need the to judgment. Porter vs. Rummery. 64 contract of the plaintiff be contained in 2. The plaintiff and defendant, and the same paper with that of the defendthe person summoned as trustee, being | ant, or be reduced to writing at all. Ibid. all inhabitants of another state, and the only service of the writ being on the supposed trustee, the Court dismissed the action ex officio. Tingley vs. Bateman & Trustee. See AMENDMENt, 1, 2. 343 BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &C., 3. DOWER. FOREIGN ATTACHMENT. SET-OFF. PRISON. 1. The yard of a prison, enclosed with a picket fence twelve feet high, containing the only necessary-house for the accommodation of the prisoners, is not an apartment of the prison within the meaning of the statute of 1784, c. 41, §8, not having been assigned as such. M'Lellan & Al. vs. Dalton & Al. 190 2. Where a judgment debtor enlisted into the army of the United States, was afterwards committed to prison in execution, and, having obtained the liberty of the yard by giving bond according to the statute, was forcibly carried without the limits of the prison by a party of soldiers, he was holden to have committed an escape within the condition of his bond. Cargill vs. Taylor & Al. 206 3. A continued indulgence by a jailer, in permitting prisoners for debt, who have the liberty of the yard, to occupy apartments not appropriated to their use by the Sessions, is no defence to an action upon the bond given for such liberty. Clap, Adm., vs. Cofran. 373 PROBATE BOND. PROMISE. 1. A promise to a judgment creditor, "if the execution can be delayed," is equivalent to saying, "if you will delay it," or, "in consideration that you will delay it." Lent & Al. vs. Padelford. 230 2. It is not necessary that a written 3. An assignment by A, to B, of a sum of money due from C to A, an assent on the part of C, and an express promise by him to B to pay accordingly, is sufficient to maintain assumpsit by B against C, although the sum due from C to A be an unliquidated balance of account, if the promise be to pay what shall appear to be due;-so, if the assignment be of a sum to become due to A at a future day, he is liable when the money falls due. Such assignment may be effected by a verbal agreement, without writing. Crocker & Ur. vs. Whitney. 316 4. A supercargo of a ship promises to pay a sum of money to a creditor of a seaman shipped for a voyage, "if there should be so much due to him from the ship;"-after a verdict for the promisee, it was holden that these words expressed merely a limitation of the extent of the undertaking, and not a condition precedent to the performance of it. Ibid. PROMISSORY NOTES. See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &c. COPARTNERS. SUNDAY. EVIDENCE, 1, 10, 12. PROPRIETORS OF COMMON 1. Where the proprietors of the common and undivided lands in a township, at a regular meeting, voted a general acceptance and confirmation of the locations reported by their committee, with out voting upon each location in partic ular, and this being proved to be the general course of their proceedings in all locations, one so accepted and coufirmed was held good and sufficient Codman & Al. vs. Winslow. 14€ See FLATS. PROVISIONS, SALE OF |