Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

same.

And for a court, disregarding the teachings of both, to declare for a repeal where the legislature has not, is to enact, not interpret, the laws.

IV. REPEALS IN PARTICULAR STATES.

§ 163. Further authorities grouped.— The foregoing discussions disclose some diversities of doctrine in the different states. And there are probably others. Hence, and for purposes of convenience, some of the authorities are here, in a note,

1

England.— Rex v. Paine, 1 East, United States.-U. S. v. Pirates, 5 P. C. 5; Rex v. Thorne, 2 East, P. C. Wheat. 184; U. S. v. Halberstadt. 622; Williams v. Reg., 7 Q. B. 250; Gilpin, 262; U. S. v. Jones, 3 Wash. Reg. v. Wynn, 1 Den. C. C. 365, 1 C. C. 209; Morlot v. Lawrence, 1 Temp. & M. 32, 13 Jur. 107, 18 Law J. Blatch. 608; U. S. v. A Package of (N. S.) M. C. 51; Reg. v. Overton, 4 Q. Lace, Gilpin, 338; U. S. v. Irwin, 5 B. 83; Reg. v. Tivey, 1 Den. C. C. 63; McLean, 178; The Estrella, 4 Wheat. Rex v. Farrington, Russ. & Ry. 207; 298; U. S. v. Cushman, 1 Low. 414: Rex v. Robinson, 2 Leach, 749, 2 East, [U. S. v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. 52, 30 L. P. C. 1110; Rex v. Carlile, 3 B. & Ald. ed. 559; Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 161; Rex v. Waddington, 1 B. & C. 26; 33 L. ed. 879; R. R. Co. v. U. S., 127 Rex v. Moor, 2 Mod. 128; Sir John U. S. 406, 32 L. ed. 180; U. S. v. AuffKnight's Case, 3 Mod. 118; Rex v. mordt, 122 U. S. 107, 30 L. ed. 1182; Jackson, Cowp. 297; Rex v. Taylor, D. C. v. Hutton, 143 U. S. 18, 36 L. ed. Russ. & Ry. 373; Reg. v. Pugh, 6 Mod. 60; Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682, 34 L. 140, 141; Reg. v. Sill, Dearsly, 10, 14 ed. 832; National Bank v. Peters, 144 Eng. L. & Eq. 135; Rex v. O'Brian, 7 U. S. 570, 36 L. ed. 545; Sherman v. Mod. 378, 379; Reg. v. Brecon, 3 New Grinnell, 123 U. S. 679, 31 L. ed. 278; Sess. Cas. 434, 13 Jur. 422; Reg. v. Gurnee v. Patrick, 137 U. S. 141, 34 Thompson, 20 Law J. (N. S.) M. C. 183, L. ed. 601; U. S. v. Reisinger, 129 U. 15 Jur. 654; Rex v. Stanley, Russ. & S. 398, 32 L. ed. 480; Re Hall, 167 U. S. Ry. 432; Rex v. Boyall, 2 Bur. 832, 2 38, 42 L. ed. 69; Frost v. Wenie, 157 Keny. 549; Michell v. Brown, 1 Ellis U. S. 46, 39 L. ed. 614; U. S. v. Great& E. 267; [Thorpe v. Adams, 6 C. P. house, 166 U. S. 601, 41 L ed. 1130; 125; Queen v. Justices, 1 Q. B. D. 220; Rosecrans v. U. S., 165 U. S. 257, 41 Hill v. Hall, 1 Ex. D. 411; Pollock v. L. ed. 708; Vance 2. Vandercook, 170 Company, 37 Ch. D. 661; Reeve v. U. S. 438, 42 L. ed. 1100; Bear Lake Gibson, 1 Q. B. D. 652 (1891); Dyer v. Co. v. Garland, 164 U. S. 1, 41 L. ed. Tulley, 2 Q. B. D. 794 (1894); Summers 327.] v. Board, Div. Ct. 1 Q. B. 612 (1893); Alabama.-S. v. Coleman, 5 Port. Keep v. St. Mary, C. A. 2 Q. B. D. 524 32; Smith v. S., 1 Stew. 506; Hodges (1894); In re Tithe Act, 1 Q. B. 213 v. S., 8 Ala. 55; S. v. Whitworth, 8 (1894); Abbott v. Minister, J. C. (1895), Port. 434; S. v. Jones, 5 Ala. 666; S. A. C. 425; Gwynne v. Drewitt, 2 Ch. v. Flanigin, 5 Ala. 477; Hawkins v. (1894), 616; Heston v. Grout, C. A. S., 3 Stew. & P. 63; Moore v. S., 16 (1897), 2 Ch. 306.]

Ala. 411; S. v. Moseley, 14 Ala. 390; Ireland.— Reg. v. Murphy, Jebb, S. v. Allaire, 14 Ala. 435; Hirschfelder 315.

v. S., 18 Ala. 112; Sterne v. S., 20 Ala.

collected and cited in the order of the states. Mainly they are not repetitions of what has gone before, but some of them occur 43; S. v. Moore, 19 Ala. 514; Huggins 435, 12 Atl. R. 517; Hinman v. Good. 4. Ball, 19 Ala. 587; De Bernie v. S., year, 56 Conn. 213, 14 Atl. R. 804; 19 Ala 23; Jordan v. S., 15 Ala. 746; Bissell v. Dickerson, 64 Conn. 64, 29 Turner v. S., 40 Ala. 21; Jeffries v. S., Atl. R. 226.] 39 Ala. 655; Magruder v. S., 40 Ala. Dakota.-P. v. Sponsler, 1 Dak. 289; 347; Luke v. Calhoun, 56 Ala. 415; (Ter. v. McPherson, 6 Tripp, 27, 50 N. Sanders v. S., 58 Ala. 371; Steele v. S.; W. R. 351.] 61 Ala. 213; [R. R. Co. v. Perryman, Delaware.-S. v. Harker, 4 Harring. 91 Ala. 413, 8 S. R. 699; Beale v. Posey, (Del.) 559; (In re Lord & Polk Co., 7 72 Ala. 323; Washington v. S., 72 Ala.

Ch. R. 248.) 272; Jackson v. S., 75 Ala. 26; S. v.

Florida.—Luke v. S., 5 Fla. 185; Warford, 84 Ala. 15, 3 S. R. 911.] (National Bank v. Williams, 38 Fla.

Arkansas.-Scoggin v. Taylor, 8 305; S. v. Smith, 26 Fla. 427, 7 S. R. 848; Eng. 380; Campbell v. Campbell, 8 Hope v. Johnston, 28 Fla. 55, 9 S. R. Eng. 513; Ex parte Trapnall, 1 Eng. 830.] 9, [42 Am. D. 676;] Hamilton v. Bux- Georgia.-S. v. Calvin, R. M. Charl. ton, 1 Eng. 24; S. v. Brandon, 28 Ark. 151; S. v. Maloney, R. M. Charl. 84; 410; S. v. Holman, 29 Ark. 58; [Wood S. v. Savannah, T. U. P. Charl. 235, v. S., 47 Ark. 488, 1 S. W. R. 709; Bab [4 Am. D. 708;] Union Branch R. R. cock v. Helena, 34 Ark. 499; Zerger Co. v. East Tennessee and Georgia . Quilling, 48 Ark. 159, 2 S. W. R. Railroad Banking Co., 14 Ga. 327; 662; Hawkins v. Taylor, 56 Ark. 45, Gorman v. Hammond, 28 Ga. 85; 198 W. R. 105; Coats v. Still, 41 Ark. Bloom v. S., 20 Ga. 443; Wall v. Ma 149; Chamberlain v. S., 50 Ark. 132, Neil, 20 Ga. 239; Wheeler v. S., 23 6 S. W. R. 524; Glidewell v. Martin, Ga. 9; Georgia R. R. Co. v. Kirkpat51 Ark. 559, 11 S. W. R. 882; Hogane rick, 35 Ga. 144; [Macon Co. v. Gibt. Hogane, 57 Ark. 508, 22 S. W. R son, 85 Ga. 19, 11 S. E. R. 442; Smith 167; Scales v. S., 47 Ark. 476, 1 S. W. v. Oatts, 92 Ga. 694, 18 S. E. R. 1007;

McGruder v. S., 83 Ga. 616, 10 S. E. California. — P. v. Chu Quong, 15 R. 281; Swift v. Van Dyke, 98 Ga. Cal. 332; Ex parte Smith, 40 Cal. 419; 726.] Whitaker v. Haynes, 49 Cal. 596; Ex

Illinois.— Bruce v. Schuyler, 4 Gilparte McCarthy, 53 Cal. 412; [Fraser man, 221, [46 Am. D. 447;] Ottawa v.

Alexander, 75 Cal. 147, 16 Pac. R. La Salle, 12 Ill. 339; Illinois and 757; McAllister v. Hamblin, 83 Cal. Michigan Canal v. Chicago, 14 Ill

. 361, 23 Pac. R. 357; County v. Harris, 324; Tyson v. Postlethwaite, 13 Ill. 97 Cal 100,32 Pac. R. 594; P. . Mc 727: Perry v. P., 14 III

. 496; Smith v. Nulty, 93 Cal. 427, 26 Pac. R. 597; P., 25 Iul. 17, [76 Am. D. 780; SpringMack v. Jastro, 126 Cal 130; Re Am field Com. v. P., 137 TIL 660, 27 N. E.

R. 698; Cook Co. v. Gilbert, 146 Ill. Connecticut.-Hale v. S., 15 Conn. 268, 33 N. E. R. 761; Louisville R. R. 242; Knowles v. S., 3 Day, 103; S. v. Co. v. E. St. L., 134 IIL 656, 25 N. E. Danforth, 3 Conn. 112; Southworth R. 962.] v. S., 5 Conn., 325; Parrott v. Stevens,

Indiana.-S. v. Mullikin, 8 Blackf. 37 Conn. 93; Leonard v. Wolfram, 41 260; Fuller v. S., 1 Blackf. 63; Strong Conn 481; (Cullen v. S., 42 Conn. 55; v. S., 1 Blackf. 193; Cheezem v. S., 2 New Haven v. Water Co., 44 Conn. Ind. 149; S. v. Miskimmons, 2 Ind. 107; Windham v. Himes, 55 Conn. 440; King v. S., 2 Ind. 523; S. v. You

R. 769.]

[ocr errors]

brosewf, 109 Cal. 264.]

[ocr errors]

also in the notes to the foregoing discussions. They are not meant to be, and are not, an exhaustive collection.

[ocr errors]

mans, 5 Ind. 280; Simington v. S., 5 B. Mon. 634; [Com. v. Weller, 14 Ind. 479; Henry v. Henry, 13 Ind. Bush, 218; Auditor v. Trustees, 81 250; S. v. Horsey, 14 Ind. 185; S. v. Ky. 680; Adams v. Lexington, 83 Ky. Pierce, 14 Ind. 302; Cordell v. S., 22 657; Beatty v. Com., 91 Ky. 313, 15 Ind. 1; Webb v. Baird, 6 Ind. 13; S. W. R. 856; Com. v. Godshaw, 92 Dodd v. S., 18 Ind. 56; Hamlyn v. Ky. 435, 17 S. W. R. 737.] Nesbit, 37 Ind. 284; Ardery v. S., 56 Louisiana - Caldwell v. St. Louis Ind. 328; S. v. Miller, 59 Ind. 399; S. Perpetual Ins. Co., 1 La. An. 85; De v. Smith, 59 Ind. 179; Swinney v. Ft. Armas Case, 10 Mart. (La.) 158; BerWayne, etc. R. R. Co., 59 Ind. 205; nard v. Vignaud, 10 Mart. (La.) 482; S. v. Christman, 67 Ind. 328; Doug Herman r. Sprigg, 3 Mart. (N. S.) 190; lass v. S., 72 Ind. 385; (Baum v. S. v. Judge, 14 La. An. 486; S. v. Ful. Thoms, 150 Ind. 378, 65 Am. St. R. ler, 14 La. An. 720; New Orleans v. 368; S. v. Brugh, 5 Ind. Ap. 592, 32 Mechanics and Traders' Bank, 15 N. E. R. 869; Carr v. S., 127 Ind. 204, La. An. 107; Weaver v. Maillot, 15 26 N. E. R. 778, 22 Am. St. R. 624; La. An. 395; S. v. Carodine, 28 La. Thomas v. Butler, 139 Ind. 245; Bruce An. 24; Peet v. Nalle, 30 La. An. 949; v. Cook, 136 Ind. 214, 35 N. E. R. 992.) S. v. Daniel, 31 La. An. 91; (S. v. La

Iowa.-S. v. Moffett, 1 Greene batut, 39 La. An. 513, 2 S. R. 550; (Iowa), 247; Jones v. S., 1 Iowa, 395; New Orleans v. St. Anna Asylum, 31 Goodwin v. Thompson, 2 Greene La. An. 292; Wintz v. Girardey, 31 (Iowa), 329; Baker v. The Milwau- La. An. 381.] kee, 14 Iowa, 214; S. v. Donehey, 8 Maine.-- Gooch v. Stephenson, 13 Iowa, 396; Stoneman v. Whaley, 9 Me. 371; Towle v. Marrett, 3 Greenl. Iowa, 390; (Snell v. R. R. Co., 78 22, (14 Am. D. 206;] Parsons v. BrigIowa, 88, 42 N. W. R. 588; Straight ham, 34 Me. 240; S. v. Woodward, 34 v. Crawford, 73 Iowa, 676, 39 N. W. Me. 293; S. e. Thompson, 70 Me. 196; R. 920; S. v. Courtney, 73 Iowa, 619, (Smith v. Sullivan, 71 Me. 150; Sta35 N. W. R. 685; Smith v. R. R. Co., ples v. Peabody, 83 Me. 207, 22 Atl. R. 86 Iowa, 202, 53 N. W. R. 128; Sher 113; Starbird v. Brown, 84 Me. 238, man v. Des Moines, 100 Iowa, 88; 24 Atl. R. 824.] Brown v. McCollum, 76 Iowa, 479, 41 Maryland. - Dugan v. Gittings, 3 N. W. R. 197, 14 Am. St. R. 228; Han- Gill, 138, [43 Am. D. 306;] Wright 2. cock v. District, 78 lowa, 550, 43 N. Freeman, 5 Har. & J. 467; ChesaW. R. 527; Pearson v. Distillery, 72 peake and Ohio Canal v. Baltimore & Iowa, 348, 34 N. W. R. 1.]

Ohio R. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1; Fred kansas.-S. v. Young, 17 Kan. 414; erick v. Groshon, 30 Md. 436; Cum[Com’rs v. Hudson, 20 Kan. 71; S. v. berland v. Magruder, 34 Md. 381; (S. Schmidt, 34 Kan. 399, 8 Pac. R. 867; v. Benzinger, 83 Md. 481; Yunger t. S. v. Stiedt, 31 Kan. 245, 1 Pac. R. 635.] S., 78 Md. 574, 28 Atl. R. 404; Turner

Kentucky.— Ely v. Thompson, 3 A. v. S., 55 Md. 240; Weiskittle v. S., 58 K. Mar. 70; Ervine v. Com., 5 Dana, Md. 155.] 216; Harrison v. Chiles, 3 Litt. 194; Massachusetts.- Com. v. Worces Gregory v. Com., 2 Dana, 417; Adams ter, 3 Pick. 462; Jennings v. Com., 17 V. Ashby, 2 Bibb, 96; Eccles v. Ste. Pick. 80; Wilde v. Com., 2 Met. 408; phenson, 3 Bibb, 517; Lillard v. Mc- Com. v. Cooley, 10 Pick. 37; ShatGee, 4 Bibb, 165; Hickman v. Little- tuck v. Woods, 1 Pick. 171; Goode page, 2 Dana, 344; Com. v. Craig, -15 now v. Buttrick, 7 Mass. 140; Bartlet

$ 163a. Course of the discussion.- Having, in this chapter, seen what are the leading doctrines of repeal, we shall in the next chapter follow some of them more into detail. And in v. King, 12 Mass. 537; Ashley, Appel- 17 S. W. R. 581; S. v. School Board, lant, 4 Pick. 21; Mason v. Waite, 1 131 Mo. 505, 33 S. W. R. 3.] Pick. 452; Nichols v. Squire, 5 Pick. Nevada.- Thorpe v. Schooling, 7 168; Com. v. Ayer, 3 Cush. 150; Ellis Nev. 15; (S. v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 319; v. Paige, 1 Pick. 43; Com. v. Kimball, Skyrme v. Occidental Co., 8 Nov. 220.) 21 Pick. 373; Com. v. King, 13 Met. New Hampshire.-S. v. Buckman, 115; Britton v. Com., 1 Cush. 302; 8 N. H. 203, [29 Am. D. 646;] LeighSalem Turnpike and Chelsea Bridge ton v. Walker, 9 N. H. 59; (S. v. Otis, u Hayes, 5 Cush. 458; Com. v. Her 42 N. H. 71; Hillsborough v. Manchesrick, 6 Cush. 465; Com. v. Flannelly, ter, 49 N. H. 56; Spaulding's Appeal, 15 Gray, 195; Com. v. Norton, 13 52 N. H. 336.] Allen, 550; Carter v. Burt, 12 Allen, New Jersey.- Perine v. Van Note, 424; New London Northern R. R. Co. 1 Southard, 146; Buckallew v. Ack. u. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 102 Mass. erman, 3 Halst. 48; S. v. Chambers386; Com. v. Smith, 103 Mass. 444; burg, 8 Vroom, 258; [Road Com. v. Com. v. Costello, 118 Mass. 454; Harrington, 25 Vr. 274, 23 Atl. R. 666; (United Hebrews v. Benshimal, 130 Mersereau v. Mersereau, 6 Dick. 382, Mass. 325; French v. Conn. Co., 145 26 Atl. R. 682; S. v. Crusius, 28 Vr. Mass. 261, 14 N. E. R. 113; Com. v. 279; Wall v. Bradshaw, 25 Vr. 175, Manchester, 152 Mass. 230, 25 N. E. 25 Atl. R. 271.] R. 113; Com. v. Kelly, 163 Mass. 169, New York.- Vallance v. King, 3 39 N. E. R. 776.]

Barb. 548; P. v. Townsey, 5 Denio, (Michigan. — P. v. Com'r, 23 Mich. 70; Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cow. 165, 270; P. v. Hobson, 48 Mich. 27, 11 N. [15 Am. D. 462;] Wright v. Smith, 13 W. R. 771; P. v. Bussell, 59 Mich. 104, Barb. 414; Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill 26 N. W. R. 306; P. v. Hanrahan, 75 (N. Y.), 221; Williams v. Potter, 2 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. R. 1124; P. v.

Barb. 316; Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns. Furman, 85 Mich. 110, 48 N. W. R 175; Platt v. Sherry, 7 Wend. 236; 169.)

Scidmore v. Smith, 13 Johns. 322; Minnesota.— Maple Lakev.Wright, Wheaton v. Hibbard, 20 Johns. 290, 12 Minn. 403; Burwell v. Tullis, 12 [11 Am. D. 284;] Stafford v. Ingersol, Minn. 572; 8. v. Herzog, 25 Minn. 490; 3 Hill (N. Y.), 38; Renwick v. Morris, [Moss v. St. Paul, 21 Minn. 421; S. v. 3 Hill (N. Y.), 621, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 575; Archibald, 43 Minn. 328, 45 N. W. R. McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Society, 606; S. v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 151, 60 N. 9 Cow. 437, [18 Am. D. 516;] Hand v. W. R. 1087; S. v. Smith, 62 Minn. Ballou, 2 Kern. 541; P. v. McCann,

16 N. Y. 58, [69 Am. D. 642;] New Mississippi – White v. Johnson, 23 York v. Walker, 4 E. D. Smith, 258; Miss. 68; Shelton v. Baldwin, 26 Miss. Manchester v. Herrington, 6 Seld. 164; 439; (Pons v. S., 49 Miss. 1; Gibbons [McKenna v. Edmundstone, 91 N. Y. v. Brittenum, 56 Miss. 232; S. v. Elks, 231; Buffalo Ass'n v. Buffalo, 118

N. Y. 61, 22 N. E. R. 962; N. Y. Insti. Missouri. – S. v. Merry, 3 Mo. 278; tution, 121 N. Y. 234, 24 N. E. R. 378; Smith v. 8., 14 Mo. 147; S. v. St. Louis P. v. Keller, 54 N. Y. Sup. 1011; Wirt County Court, 41 Mo. 52; (S. v. Slover, v. Supervisors, 90 Hun, 205.] 134 Mo. 607, 31 S. W. R. 1054; St. Jo

North Carolina.-S. v. Henderson, R R. Co. v. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557, 2 Dev. & Bat. 543; S. v. Walker, N. C. 12

540, 64 N. W. R. 1022.]

69 Miss. 895, 13 S. R. 255.]

the chapter next following we shall consider the consequences of repeal.

Term R. 229; S. v. Seaborn, 4 Dev. Gurney, 2 s. C. 559; S. v. Branham, 305, 310; S. v. Nat, 13 Ire. 154; [Greens- 13 S. C. 389; [Scurry v. Coleman, 14 boro v. McAdoo, 112 N. C. 359, 17 S. S. C. 169; S. v. Anderson, 22 S. C. 587; E. R. 178; S. v. Snow, 117 N. C. 774; Irwin v. Brooks, 19 S C. 104.] S. v. Williams, 117 N. C. 753; S. v. Tennessee.-S. v. Gainer, 3 Humph. Womble, 112 N. C. 862, 17 S. E. R. 39; S. v. Rutledge, 8 Humph. 32; 491, 19 L R. A. 827.]

Simpson v. S., 10 Yerg. 525; Taylor v. Ohio.- Carter v. Hawley, Wright, S., 7 Humph. 510; S. v. Martin, 3 74; Moore v. Vance, 1 Ohio, 1; Dodge Heisk. 487; France v. S., 6 Bax. 478; v. Gridley, 10 Ohio, 173, 178; Seymour [Bailey v. Drane, 96 Tenn. 16; Hall v. v. Milford & Chillicothe Turnpike, 10 S., 3 Lea, 557; Burnett v. Maloney, 97 Ohio, 476, 482; Calkins v. S., 14 Ohio Tenn. 697; Knoxville v. Lewis, 12 St. 222; [Commissioners v. Board, 39 Lea, 180; R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 101 Ohio St. 628; S. v. Rabbits, 46 Ohio Tenn. 197.] St. 178, 19 N. E. R. 437.)

Texas. — Fowler v. Brown, 5 Tox. Pennsylvania.– Foster v. Com., 8 407; Rogers v. Watrous, 8 Tez 62, [58 Watts & S. 77; Drew v. Com., 1 Am. D. 100:] S. v. Horan, 11 Tex. 144; Whart. 279; Report of Judges, 3 Binn. Greer v. S., 22 Tex. 588; May v. S., 35 595; Com. v. Cromley, 1 Ashm. 179; Tex. 650; S. v. Perry, 44 Tex. 100; Street v. Com., 6 Watts & 8. 209; Monroe v. S., 3 Tex. Ap. 341; Ellison Com, r. Evans, 13 S. & R. 426; Jeffer- v. S., 6 Tex. Ap. 248; Hunt v. S., 7 son v. Reitz, 56 Pa. St. 44; Gwinner v. Tex. Ap. 212; Myers v. S., 8 Tex. Ap. Lehigh, etc. R. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 126; 321; [Stirman v. S., 21 Tex. 734; LaCom. v. McGuirk, 78 Pa. St. 298; redo v. Martin, 52 Tex. 548; Tunstall [Homer v. Com., 106 Pa St. 221, 51 v. Wormley, 54 Tex. 476; S. v. R. R. Am. R. 521; Mallory v. Com., 115 Pa. Co., 57 Tex. 534; Laughter v. Seela, St. 25, 7 Atl. R. 790; Morrison v. 59 Tex. 177; Brown v. Chancellor, 61 County, 127 Pa. St. 110, 17 Atl R. Tox. 437; Yarborough v. Collins, 91 755.]

Tex. 306, 43 S. W. R. 872; S. v. Smith, Rhode Island. - S. v. Wilbor, 1 R. L 44 Tex. 444; Gill v. S., 30 Tex. 514.] 199, [36 Am. D. 245; Verry v. Com., Verinont.-S. v. McLeran, 1 Aikens, 12 R. I. 578; S. u Beswick, 13 R. L 311; S. v. Wilkinson, 2 Vt. 480, [21 211, 43 Am. R. 26.)

Am. D. 560;] Pratt v. Jones, 25 Vt. South Carolina.-S. v. Jones, 1 303, 307; [Hogaboon v. Highgate, 55 McMul. 236, (36 Am. D. 257;] S. v. Vt. 412; French v. Holt, 57 Vt. 187; Williams, 2 Rich. 418, [45 Am. D. 741;) In re Snell, 58 Vt. 207, 1 Atl. R. 566.] S. v. Baldwin, 2 Bailey, 541; 8. v. Virginia. - Com. v. Pegram, 1 Brown, 2 Speers, 129; S. v. Bowen, 3 Leigh, 569; Lanthrop v. Com., 6 Grat. Strob. 573; S. v. Nicholas, 2 Strob. 671; McReady v. Com., 27 Grat. 982; 278; S. v. Thompson, 2 Strob. 12, [47 (Justice v. Com., 81 Va. 209; Davies Am. D. 588;] S. v. Cattell, 2 Hill v. Creighton, 33 Grat. 696; Hogan v. (S. C.), 291; S. v. Huntington, 3 Brev. Guigon, 29 Grat. 705.] 111; S. v. Evans, 3 Hill (S. C.), 190; S. Wisconsin.-Schieve v. S., 17 Wis. v. Brock, 11 Rich. 447; S. v. Elrod, 12 252; (S. v. Richards, 76 Wis. 354, 44 Rich. 662; Linam v. Johnson, 2 Bailey, N. W. R. 1104; Schneider v. Staples, 137; S. v. Stoll, 2 S. C. 538; S. v. 66 Wis. 167, 28 N. W. R. 145.]

178

« AnteriorContinuar »