What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action agreement alleged amendment amount appeared assignee assumpsit attachment attorney authority barratry charge claim commenced common pleas Commonwealth contract conveyance conveyed count court of common court of equity creditors damages debt debtor decease declaration deed defendant defendant's demand discharge district dollars easement England Worsted Company entitled evidence execution executor facts Farley fee simple fendant Fletcher granted grantor Greenl ground held indictment insolvent Insurance interest Joseph Fletcher judge judgment Knight land levy locus in quo master Mattapoisett ment Middleborough mortgage mortgagor Mystic River nonsuit opinion owner paid Parker parties payment perjury person petition petitioner Pick plaintiff possession premises proceedings prove provisions purchase purpose question Rachel Smith real estate recover rule Samuel Parker selectmen ship sold statute suit Tahiti Tarbell tenant term testatrix testified therein thereof thereupon tiff tion town trespass trial trustees verdict vessel wife witness writ
Page 583 - In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them : the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them : the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers,, or either of them : to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Page 110 - And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience : or for his religious profession or sentiments ; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Page 288 - The distinction is very clear, where mutual covenants go to the whole of the consideration on both sides, they are mutual conditions, the one precedent to the other. But where they go only to a part, where a breach may be paid for in damages, there the defendant has a remedy on his covenant, and shall not plead it as a condition precedent.
Page 344 - In that case it was resolved that " when any has authority as attorney to do any act, he ought to do it in his name who gave the authority." The reason of this resolution is obvious. The title can regularly pass out of the person in whom it is vested only by a conveyance in his own name; and this cannot be executed by another for him, when it could not in law be executed by himself. A conveyance...
Page 168 - If any part of an agreement is valid, it will avail pro tanto, though another part of it may be prohibited by statute; provided the statute does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, render the whole void; and provided, furthermore, that the sound part can be separated from the unsound, and be enforced without injustice to the defendant.
Page 356 - By the common law of Massachusetts, and without reference to any statute, a father, if of sufficient ability, is as much bound to support and provide for his infant children, in sickness and in health, as a husband is bound by the same law and by the common law of England to support and provide for his wife.
Page 357 - England to support and provide for his wife. And if a husband desert his wife or wrongfully expel her from his house and make no provision for her support, one who furnishes her with necessary supplies may compel the husband by an action at law to pay for such supplies. And our law is the same, we have no doubt, in the case of a father who deserts or wrongfully discards his infant children.
Page 585 - No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.
Page 495 - MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal question to be decided in this case is whether the employees of a mutual ditch company are exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act 1 as persons employed in agriculture.