Case law

Brown v. Smith

66 Mass. 366 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1853

M'Gregor v. Brown

22 Mass. 170 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1827

See Cushing v. Hurd, 4 Pick. 253 . 1 This is now made a part of the duty of the officer, by Revised Stat c 73, § 17. … Emerson v. Towle, 5 Greenl. 197; Welsh v. Joy, 13 Pick. 481 . See Revised Stat. c. 73, § 18; M'Mechan v. Griffin, 3 Pick. (2d ed ) 154 157, notes, and cases there collected.

Brown v. Wells

53 Mass. 501 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1847

The party seeking to be admitted to prosecute this petition, and to obtain judgment of partition thereon, is the widow and sole devisee of Amos Brown, deceased, who originally filed the petition. … The court are therefore of opinion that the party, here applying to be admitted to appear and prosecute the petition of Amos Brown/or partition, is not authorized by law so to do. Exceptions overruled.

Commonwealth v. Brown

53 Mass. 522 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1847

Brown v. Howe

75 Mass. 84 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1857

Olney v. Brown

19 Mass. 572 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1824

J. said the question was settled in the preceding case of Miller v. Miller, and the exceptions were sustained.1 See Miller v. Miller, ante, 570; Howe’s Pract. 454.

Melville v. Brown

15 Mass. 82 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1818

Brown v. Wakefield

67 Mass. 450 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1854

Brown v. Mooers

72 Mass. 451 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1856

Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 36 . Coit v. Howd, 1 Gray, 547 Bradley v Spofford, 3 Foster, 444 *453 2. The evidence as to the general character of Shaw for truth was not competent. … . § 469, is not sustained by the case the author cites of Rex v. Clark, 2 Stark. R. 241, and is not law. Exceptions overruled.

Dodge v. Brown

113 Mass. 323 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 15, 1873

If he was employed by Payne and Brown to get the control of these notes on their behalf, and for their benefit, he did not thereby become the indorsee or holder of the notes. … This would be too plain for denial, if he had purchased the notes, or obtained the control of them, with funds placed in his hands by Payne and Brown.

Brown v. Ladd

144 Mass. 310 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 24, 1887

Brown v. Tobias

83 Mass. 385 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 15, 1861

Brown, Jr.; and that he, in behalf of the firm, made oath that he believed that the charges were true. … Simonds v. Parker, 1 Met. 508 . Cook v. Montague, 1 Gray, 446 . Tolland v. County Commissioners, 13 Gray, 12 . Exceptions overruled.

Gilman v. Brown

14 Mass. 123 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1817

sufficient deed, for carrying the same into full effect; and it was voted that any certificate, or other consideration therefor, should be received and holden by the treasurer of said company, to be disposed of by order of the board

Bogart v. Brown

22 Mass. 18 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 15, 1827

To maintain the action against Aaron Brown, the plaintiffs attempted to prove a copartnership between him and John Brown. … See Thomas v. Harding, 8 Greenl. 417. See Osgood v. Hutchins, 6 N. Hamp. R. 381.

Tuttle v. Brown

31 Mass. 514 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1833

Gould v. Newman, 6 Mass. R. 241 . The action was commenced in November next after the assignment of the mortgage to the demandant. … but to disprove the seisin of the demandant, he offers a deed of assignment made by one Moses Prichard, a deputy sheriff, to the demandant, dated September 12, 1831, of the right in equity of redemption which one Thomas Brown

Brown v. Lakeman

34 Mass. 444 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 15, 1835

Brown v. Seymour

18 Mass. 32 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1822

The Court dismissed the action for want of a declaration, and allowed the trustee his costs. 1 See Brigham v. Este, 2 Pick. 420 ; Rathbone v. Rathbone, 4 Pick. 89 .

Brown v. Lakeman

46 Mass. 347 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Nov 15, 1842

Brown v. Foster

58 Mass. 214 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 15, 1849

Ackley and Brown, the persons summoned as trustees, disclosed certain credits of the principal debtor in then hands. These credits were claimed by Alpheus Heywood as having been assigned to him by Foster, the debtor. … The material facts appear to be as follows: — Three minor sons of the debtor were in the employment of Ackley and Brown, the trustees, who paid their wages to Daniel Heywood, for supplies furnished by him to the debtor.

Fuller v. Brown

52 Mass. 440 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 15, 1846

The cases of Stark v. Parker, 2 Pick. 267 , and Olmstead v.