Case law

Edwards v. Bay State Gas Co.

172 F. 971 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 23, 1909

Edwards v. Bay State Gas Company (C. C.) 91 Fed. 942, 946 . … Thomas v. Western Car Company, 149 U. S. 95, 116, 117 , 13 Sup. Ct. 824, 37 L. Ed. 663 ; Hutchinson v. Otis, 115 Fed. 937, 944 , 53 C. C. A. 419 .

United States v. Conant

25 F. Cas. 591 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1879

S. v. Taintor [Case No. 16,-428], assuming that the intent is necessary, The meaning and importance of the intent is a good deal discussed on the supposition that it is a part of the s'atute. … (Browne 1 148.] [From 2 Nat. Bank. Cas. (.Browne) 148.] [From 2 Nat. Bank. Cas. (.Browne) 148.] [From 2 Nat. Bank. Cas. (Browne) 148.] [From 2 Nat. Bank. Gas. (Browne) 148.]

Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Goldthwaite

133 F. 794 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 20, 1904

See Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Mechanic’s Clothing Co. (Circuit Court of the United States, District of Rhode Island, February 15, 1904, opinion by Judge Brown) 128 Fed. 800 . Motion granted April 25, 1904.

The George

10 F. Cas. 205 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1832

There was some peculiarity in the circumstances of the case of Harden v. … But the authority there referred to (Read v.

United States v. Coffin

25 F. Cas. 485 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1833

S. v. Ruggles [Case No. 16,205]: Philp’s Case, 1 Moody. Cr. Cas. 264, 273; Bromage v. Prosser, 4 Barn. & C. 247, 255; Dexter v. Spear [Case No. 3,867]. … See. also, Rex v. Harpur, 1 Dowl. & R. 222; Duncan v. Thwaites. 3 Barn. & C. 556: Pattison v. Jones, 8 Barn. & C. 578.

Cross v. United States

6 F. Cas. 892 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1812

In Lee v. … The case of Priestman v. U. S., 4 Dall. [4 U.

Matthews v. Offley

16 F. Cas. 1128 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1837

This is the rule of the common law; and, therefore, it has been held, that a suit will not lie by a common informer for such a penalty, unless power is given to him for that purpose by statute (Fleming v. … Bailey, 5 East, 313); neither will an indictment lie for such a penalty, unless also specially allowed by statute (Rex v.

Adams v. West Roxbury

1 F. Cas. 152 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 15, 1875

In Cayzer v. … In Noyes v.

Fitz v. The Amelie

9 F. Cas. 186 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1865

Hayman v. Molton, 5 Esp. 65; The Fanny & Elmira, Edw. Adm. 117; Milles v. Fletcher, 1 Doug. 231 ; Idle v. Royal Exchange Assur. Co., 8 Taunt. 755; Freeman v. East India Co., 5 Barn. & Ald. 617; Cannan v. … Brown v. Lull [Case No. 2,018]; Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Pet. [30 U. S.] 675.

Nieto v. Clark

18 F. Cas. 236 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1858

Adm. 261; Hutchinson v. Coombs, [Case No. 6,955]. … Chamberlain v. Chandler [Case No. 2,575].

Nutter v. Mossberg

128 F. 55 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 25, 1904

The bell thus falls into the class of bells referred to in the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit in Nutter v. Brown, 98 Fed. 892, 893 , 39 C. C. … I have considered carefully the language of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Nutter v. Brown, 98 Fed. 892 , 39 C. C.

Hancox v. Fishing Ins. Co.

11 F. Cas. 409 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jan 15, 1838

There are many authorities in the books to this effect; and among them are Godin v. London Assur. Co., 1 Burrows, 90; Lucena v. Craufurd, 2 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 294; Hill v. Secretan, 1 Bos. & P. 315; Wolff v. … See. also, on this same point, Wiggin v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 7 Pick. 271 ; Buck v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 151, 162, 163; and Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Pet. [27 U. S.] 25. 46, 47.

Pierce v. Winsor

19 F. Cas. 646 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1861

Co. v. New York & Virginia S. S. Co., 24 How. [65 U. S.] 313. … Baron Parke applied that rule in the case of Gibson v. Small, 24 Eng.

Smith v. Downing

22 F. Cas. 511 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jun 15, 1850

Haworth v. Hardcastle, 1 Webst. Pat. Cas. 485; Davoll v. Brown [Case No. 3,662]; [Grant v. Raymond] 6 Pet. [31 C. S.] 218; Wyeth v. Stone [Case No. 18,107]; Blanchard v. Sprague [Id. 1,518]; 1 Leeman, 482. … See Wyeth v. Stone [supra]; Blanchard v. Sprague [supra]; Ames v. Howard [Case No. 320]; 1 Webst. Tat. Cas. 485; [Grant v. Raymond] 6 Pet [31 U. S.] 218; Davoll v. Brown [supra].

The Marion

16 F. Cas. 751 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1840

See Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. [32 U. S.] 324. See also, The Robert Fulton [Case No. 11,890]; Davis v. … Spooner was doing the work of a painter on board during a part of the same period.

United States v. Howard

26 F. Cas. 388 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1837

Rex v. Hickman, 2 East, P. C. p. 593, c. 16. § 31. See, also, Rex v. Holt, 5 Term R. 446; s. c., 2 Leach, 593 (676). … Rex v. Gill, Russ. & R. 431, 432.

Gardiner v. Howe

9 F. Cas. 1157 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1865

Reference is made by the defendant to the cases of Brown v. Duchesne [Case No. 2,004], and Id., 19 How. [60 U.

Nutter v. Mossberg

118 F. 168 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 14, 1902

BROWN, District Judge. … In support of this application, the defendants rely upon *169 Roemer v. Simon, 91 U. S. 149 , 24 L. Ed. 384 ; Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Unhairing Mach. Co., 39 C. C. A. 677 , 99 Fed. 1003 ; Id. (C.

United States v. Hemmer

26 F. Cas. 259 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1825

An endeavour to commit a revolt on board of the ship. … They are restraints of his personal liberty, destroying his authority on board of the sliip. and compelling him to limit liis movements to the space allotted him. The case1 of U. S. v.

Henderson v. Tompkins

60 F. 758 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 21, 1894

It was pointed out by the court in Industries Co. v. Grace, ubi supra, that as Brown v. … But the latter, as stated in Brown v.