Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

such loans have been made in conformity with the laws of such state providing for the incorporation of insurance companies therein, and the investment of their capital, and all other assets and property in the United States in which fire insurance companies, organized under the laws of this state, may by the laws thereof invest, provided, such bonds and mortgages, assets and property shall be vested in and held in the United States by trustees approved by the superintendent of the insurance department of this state, and citizens of the United States, for the general benefit and security of all its policyholders and creditors in the United States, after taking from such aggregate value the same deductions for losses, debts and liabilities in this and the other states of the United States, and for premiums upon risks therein not yet expired, as is authorized or required by the laws of this state or the regulations of its insurance department, with respect to fire insurance companies organized under the laws of this state. The said trustees are hereby authorized to invest in and hold and convey real estate to the same extent, and subject to the same restrictions, rules and regulations, to which companies incorporated in this state are subject.

§ 3. To determine the amount of such capital the agent or attorney of such foreign insurance company doing fire insurance business in this state shall, within four months after the passage of this act, and in the month of January of every year thereafter, render to him a detailed statement of the items making up the said capital, and of the deductions to be made therefrom, subscribed and verified by the oath of such agent or attorney, and said superintendent shall have authority to make such examinations in respect to such assets and liabilities as he shall deem proper, and upon compliance with the requirements of this act it shall be his duty thereupon, and from year to year thereafter, to issue to such foreign insurance company a certificate of the amount of its so determined capital, and that the requirements of this act have been complied with, upon which capital it may transact business in this state, but subject to all the restrictions and limitations of the laws regulating fire insurance companies incorporated under the laws of this state.

§ 4. The trustees referred to in the second section of this act shall be appointed directly by the board of managers or directors of such foreign insurance company, and a duly certified copy of the vote or resolution by which they were appointed shall, together with the certified copy of the trust deed or instrument under which they are to act, be filed in the office of the superintendent of the insurance department; and the said superintendent shall have the same power to examine such trustees, or the agent or attorney of such company, under oath, and their assets, books and accounts, either in person or by one or more persons to be appointed by him, as by law he has, as to the officers, agents, assets, books and accounts of any company authorized to do the fire insurance business in this state. And if by such examination it shall appear that the net capital for which the last certificate shall be outstanding has been materially reduced, the superintendent may call in such certificate and issue another, correspondent with such reduced capital.

$5. No foreign insurance company, or any agent or attorney thereof, shall be admitted to transact the business of fire insurance in this state, or take risks, until, in addition to all other requirements of the laws now in force in this state, such company shall comply with the provisions of this act, and receive the certificate of the superintendent of the insurance department mentioned in the third section of this act.

§ 6. It shall not be lawful for any such foreign insurance company, their agent or attorney, directly or indirectly, to contract for or effect any re-insurance of any risk on property in this state, with any insurance company, corporation, association, partnership or individual, other than such as companies, chartered by the state of New York, may lawfully make re-insurance on.

§7. The capital of any foreign insurance company, so determined and certified, shall be subject to taxation the same as the capital of fire insurance companies organized

under the laws of this state, to be levied, assessed and collected as prescribed by the laws of this state, at such place in this state as such foreign insurance company shall have Its principal office.

$ 8. The affairs of every foreign insurance company doing fire insurance business in this state shall be subject to the same supervision and examination by the superintendent of the insurance department as those of fire insurance companies organized under the laws of this state, as to the examination of its books, assets, accounts, and general condition; and every foreign insurance company doing fire insurance business in this state, and its agents and trustees, shall at all times be subject to and be required to make the same statements, and to answer the same inquiries, and be subject to the same examinations, and in case of default therein, to the same penalties and liabilities, as fire insurance companies organized under the laws of this state, or any of the officers thereof, are or may be liable to by the laws of this state or the regulations of its insurance department; and the said superintendent is hereby authorized, whenever he shall deem it necessary, either in person or by a proper person or persons by him appointed, to repair to the general office of any such foreign insurance company, wherever the same may be, and make an investigation and examination of the affairs and condition of such company. The said superintendent is hereby authorized to cancel and revoke the certificate of any foreign insurance company refusing or unreasonably neglecting to comply with any of the provisions of this act, or to allow the examination herein provided for to be made, and to prevent such company from doing business in this state.

§ 9. Any violation of any of the provisions of this act shall subject the party so violating to a penalty of five hundred dollars for each violation, which shall be sued for and recovered in the manner provided for in section twenty-five of "An act to provide for the incorporation of fire insurance companies," passed June twenty-five, eighteen hundred and fifty-three, and the amendments thereto, with the same liability to imprisonment in case of non-payment as therein provided.

§ 10. The term "foreign insurance company," as used in this act, includes any company, corporation, association, partnership or individual of any foreign government doing fire insurance business in this state, whether incorporated $11. This act shall take effect immediately.

or not.

CHAP. 883.

AN ACT to amend title four of chapter eighteen of part first of the revised statutes, entitled, Special provisions relating to certain corporations.

PASSED May 2, 1871.

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The eleventh section of the fourth title of chapter eighteen of the first part of the revised statutes is hereby amended so as to read as follows:

"The provisions of this title shall not apply to any religious society, nor to any moneyed corporation, which shall have been or shall be created, or whose charter shall be renewed or extended after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, and which shall be subject to the provisions of the second title of this chapter." $2. This act shall take effect immediately.

СПАР. 903.

AN ACT to amend section four of chapter six hundred and fifty-five of the laws of eighteen hundred and seventy, entitled "An act to provide for the introduction of an improved system of steam towage upon the canals of this state."

PASSED May 10, 1871; three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section four of chapter six hundred and fiftyfive of the laws of eighteen hundred and seventy, is hereby amended so as to read as follows:

§ 4. In case the said Norman W. Kingsley, Charles M. Gardner, their associates and successors, or corporation aforesaid, shall neglect or fail to introduce said system of towing on the Erie canal within three years after the passage of this act, all rights and privileges herein granted shall cease.

§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

The Albany Law Journal.

ALBANY, JULY 15, 1871.

MANNER OF MAKING AN ARREST.

BREAKING DOORS.

In criminal cases by officers and private citizens without warrant.*

In some cases of actual breach of the peace, committed in his presence, the officer is justified in proceeding to this extremity, even where he acts without warrant; as on his immediate pursuit of affrayers, where the affray has been made within his view, especially if there have been any extraordinary circumstances of violence attending it; and a fortiori in such breaches of the peace as amount to riot. Nim. & Walsh, 206; 1 Hawk. ch. 63, § 16. So where an affray takes place in a house, the doors of which are shut, whereby there is likely to be manslaughter, or bloodshed, and the officer demands entrance, and is refused by those within who continue the affray, he is authorized to break open the doors to keep the peace and prevent the danger. 2 Hale, 95. And where an affray is made in a house in the view or hearing of an officer, or where those who have made an affray in his presence, fly to a house and are immediately pursued by him, and he is not suffered to enter in order to suppress the affray, or to apprehend the affrayers, in either case he may justify breaking open doors. 2 Hawk. ch. 14, § 8.

It is said, also, that if there be disorderly drinking or unwarrantable disturbance in a house at an unseasonable time of night, especially in ale-houses, or the like places of public resort, the officer has the like power. 2 Hale, 95; 1 East, 322.

But this power the officer should exercise with caution; and it has been observed that even in the pursuit of affrayers, where the affray is not actually going on in the house, but where the parties have taken refuge in a house after the affray is ended, the officer will act prudently in not proceeding to this extremity without warrant, unless there have been some extraordinary circumstances of violence in the affray. 1 Nim. & Walsh, 207; 1 Russ. on Cr. 273, n. It is a principle of law so clearly settled as that no doubt or fear need be apprehended concerning it, that, when it is certain a felony has been committed or a dangerous wound given, and the offender, upon pursuit, takes refuge in his own house, either a constable or private person may, without warrant, break open his doors if refused admittance after proper demand. 1 Deacon Cr. Law, 50; 1 Chitty Cr. Law, 52; Semayne's Case, 1 Smith's Leading Cases (Am. ed.), 140. "In these cases (says Sir Michael Foster, in his discourse on Homicide, 320) the jealousy with which the law watches over the public tranquillity (a laudable jealousy it is), the principles of political justice, I mean the justice which is due to the community, all conspire to supersede every pretense of private inconvenience, and oblige us to regard the dwellings of malefactors, when shut against the demands of public justice, as no better than the dens of thieves and murderers, and to treat them accordingly." Any person may break and enter the house of another

*In vol. 2, page 303, will be found an article on the authority of officers to break open doors in criminal cases with warrant.

to prevent the commission of a felony therein. In the case of Handcock v. Baker and others, 2 Bos. & Pul. 260, which was an action of trespass, it was held that the defendants were justified in breaking and entering the plaintiff's house, and imprisoning his person, to prevent him from committing murder on his wife; it appearing that she had cried murder, and called for assistance previous to such breaking and entry, and that the defendants had demanded admittance by knocking at the door before they broke it open.

[ocr errors]

There seems some doubt as to the distinction which may exist between the power of officers and private individuals in respect to breaking doors to apprehend offenders, for it is said that the former being enjoined by law, on a reasonable charge, to apprehend the party suspected, may be justified in breaking open doors to apprehend him on mere suspicion of felony, and will be excused, though it appear that the suspicion was groundless; but a private individual acts at his own peril, and would, if the party be innocent, be liable to an action of trespass for breaking open doors without a warrant. 1 Chitty Crim. Law, 52; 2 Hale, 82, 92; 2 Bos. & Pul. 260. Authors, however, differ on the point whether the same power be invested in the officer or private person when felony is only suspected, and has not been committed within the view of the party arresting. It is indeed certain that an officer may break open doors upon the positive information of another, who was actually a witness to the felony (1 Hale, 589; 2 id. 92; 1 Chit. Cr. L. 53); and one material distinction between the power of officers and private individuals is, that the latter can act only on their own knowledge, while the former may proceed on the information of others. 1 Chit. Cr. Law, 53. The reason of this difference between the arrests of private persons and officers upon suspicion only is, that in the former case the arrest upon suspicion is only permitted, and if omitted, is not punishable; and therefore they are not permitted to break open doors; but in case of officers, they are punishable if they omit this duty. Davis, Cr. Justice, 86. Another and sufficient reason arises from the great inconvenience and danger of admitting every private man upon pretense of suspicion to break open houses, whereas officers and the authority with which they are clothed are publicly known and presumed to be sufficient. 2 Hale, 92. Chitty, however, says: "We may take it as settled, that a private person may break doors after a proper demand and notice, where he is certain a felony has been committed, and that a constable may do the same upon the information of the party in whom the knowledge or reasonable suspicion exists. 1 Chitty Cr. L. 53.

If a man, being legally arrested, escape from the officer and take shelter, though in his own house, the officer may, upon fresh pursuit, break open doors in order to retake him, having first given due notice of his business and demanded admission, and been refused. Foster, 320; 1 Salk. 79; 1 Hale, 459. But in Allen v. Martin and others,10 Wend. 300, it was decided that, if one arrested, escape into his own house, the officer, to retake him, may break the outer door; and in that case it was held that the party's conduct in having violently opposed and thrust out the officer dispensed with the necessity of a previous notification and demand, as being in such a case a senseless ceremony. After an escape, however, if fresh pursuit is not made, a warrant should be obtained from a magistrate (1 East, 324); and it should be observed that the officer will not be authorized to break open doors in order to retake a

prisoner in any case where the first arrest is illegal. Ib. In any of the above cases where the officer enters a house and the doors are locked upon him, to prevent his egress, he may break them open to obtain his liberty. So a sheriff may break open the doors of a house to rescue his officers unlawfully detained within it. 1 East, 324; 1 Chit. Cr. L. 57.

As to the question how far doors may be broken open upon suspicion of felony, there is a difference of opinion among the writers on this branch of the criminal law. Lord Coke was of the opinion that this might be done by the party originally suspecting, but by no other, unless by the constable in his presence. Chit. Cr. Law, 53. Lord Hale positively lays it down that doors may be broken open without warrant on suspicion of felony. Hale, 583. Foster, in his Discourse on Homicide, 319, 320, says: "Bare suspicion, touching the guilt of the party, will not warrant a proceeding to this extremity, though a felony has been actually committed, unless the officer comes armed with a warrant from a magistrate grounded on such suspicion." East concurs with Foster, but qualifies his opinion by observing "that it will at least be at the peril of proving that the party so taken on suspicion was guilty." 1 East, 322. Hawkins expresses his opinion as follows: "It seems the better opinion at this day, that, where one lies under a probable suspicion only, no one can justify breaking open doors in order to apprehend him." Hawk. P. C., b. 2, ch. 14, § 7.

Chitty, in his treatise on Criminal Law (1 Chit. Cr. L. 54), after a review of the different opinions on this subject, adopts the following conclusion:

"Upon the whole, therefore, it seems to be the better opinion that a private individual, in order to justify breaking open doors without warrant, must, in general, prove the actual guilt of the party arrested; and that it will not suffice to show that a felony has actually been committed by another person, or that reasonable ground of suspicions existed; but that an officer, acting bona fide on the positive charge of another, will be excused, and the party making the accusation will alone be liable. But the breaking an outer door is in general so violent, obnoxious and dangerous a proceeding, that it should be adopted only in extreme cases, where an immediate arrest is requisite."

We think the above rule too much restricted. The whole doctrine of arrests without warrant seems to rest primarily on the principle of immediate necessity, for, if time were of no account, it would be far better to obtain a warrant in all cases. Again, this necessity, particularly in felonies when committed out of view, seems to rest upon the danger of an escape of the offender, unless there is prompt action without being delayed by the time necessary to procure a warrant from the magistrate. Why, then, may not the officer break open doors, after demand and refusal, to arrest a person suspected of felony without warrant, in cases where he would be justified in making the arrest if the party suspected were found outside?

But it was broadly laid down in Beckwith v. Philby, 6 Barn. & Cresswell, 635, that an officer, having reasonable cause to suspect that a felony has been committed, has authority to arrest the party suspected, although it afterward appear that no felony had been committed. It was also held in that case, that although the officer acted on his own suspicions, and not on the charge and accusation of another, yet he was justified. Numerous decisions in England and the United States

sustain this principle. We think, therefore, that when an officer has reasonable cause to suspect the commission of a felony, although he acts on his own suspicions. and not on the positive charge of another, yet he is justified in breaking doors, after demand and refusal, to arrest the suspected party, and is only liable when he acts without reasonable cause of suspicion.

The privilege of a man's castle from an outward breach extends only to those cases where the occupier or any of his family, who have their domicil or ordinary residence there, are the objects of the arrest, for if a stranger, whose ordinary residence is elsewhere, upon pursuit take refuge in the house of another, such house is no castle of his, and therefore he cannot claim the benefit of sanctuary in it. It must be observed, however, that, in all cases where the doors of strangers are broken open upon the supposition of the person sought being there, it must be at the peril of finding him; unless, as it appears, the parties act under the sanction of a magistrate's warrant. 1 East, 321; 1 Deacon Cr. L. 52. In all cases where the circumstances are such as to allow the officer time to obtain a warrant, it is always more safe to do so.

AMERICAN REPORTS AND REPORTERS.

No. II.

MAINE.

Simon Greenleaf, afterward author of the celebrated treatise on evidence, was the first reporter of the decisions of the courts of this state, having been appointed by the governor in 1820, in pursuance of an act of the legislature passed in that year. His reports commence with the cases decided at the August term of that year, and extend through a period of twelve years, ending with the July term, 1832. They number in all nine volumes, the last of which contains an excellent digest of the cases reported by him.

Mr. Greenleaf was succeeded by John Fairfield, who reported in three volumes the cases between the April term, 1833, and the July term, 1835, both inclusive. Mr. Fairfield, having been elected to congress, was succeeded by George Washington Pierce, who died without having entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office. Mr. John Shepley was next appointed, and held the office till 1841. His reports are contained in six volumes, and numbered in the Maine series 13 to 18, inclusive. The legislature had provided in 1836 that the volumes of reports, subsequent to the third volume of Fairfield, should be entitled "Maine reports," and that the first volume thereafter should be numbered the thirteenth volume of the Maine reports.

John Appleton, present chief justice of the supreme judicial court of that state, succeeded Mr. Shepley, and continued in office for about a year, reporting the cases for 1841 in two volumes - 19 and 20 Maine. In 1842 Mr. John Shepley was again appointed, and continued till 1849-issuing ten volumes, numbered from 21 to the 30 volumes in the series, inclusive. The next reporter was Asa Reddington, who reported the cases between 1849 and 1853 in five volumes, ending with volume 35. He was succeeded by Solyman Heath, who issued five volumes containing the cases from 1853 to 1855, bringing the series down to and including volume 40; volumes 41 and 42 were reported by John Milton Adams, and contain the cases decided in 1856. Timothy Ludden was next appointed, but died after having published

the decisions of 1857 and 1858 in two volumes; and was succeeded by Wales Hubbard, who was appointed May 2, 1859. He published seven volumes, commencing with volume 45, and ending with volume 51. William Wirt Virgin, the present reporter, succeeded. At the present time he has issued six volumes, bringing the series down to volume 57, and the cases down to 1870.

The reporter is appointed by the governor, by and with the advice of the council, and holds his office during the pleasure of the executive. He is required to issue at least one volume a year, and has a salary of one thousand dollars a year, together with the profits arising from the sale of his reports.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

In 1815 the legislature authorized the supreme judicial court to appoint a reporter; but that law was repealed in 1816, before an appointment had been made, and the business was left to private enterprise. Nathaniel Adams published the first volume of reports in this state, which contained the decisions from September, 1816, to February, 1819. Levi Woodbury and William Richardson, reported the cases from Feb. 1819, to May, 1823, inclusive, in one volume. From 1823 to January, 1832, the decisions were reported by William Richardson, chief justice, in three volumes, making the third, fourth and fifth volumes of New Hampshire. The reports were continued under the direction of the supreme court, but without any ostensible reporter, to the 15th volume in the series of New Hampshire reports- or until 1844, when the publication of further volumes was suspended by reason of the refusal of the secretary of state to take and pay for the copies which the law authorized and requires him to purchase, unless the price should be reduced. The next volume issued was numbered 19 in the series, and commenced with the decisions of the fall of 1849. William Foster was the reporter. Volumes 16, 17 and 18, containing the decisions from 1844 to 1848, were not issued until 1863. Volume 20 was reported by William E. Chandler. With the 21st volume, Mr. Foster again assumed the duty of reporter, and published eleven volumes-21-31 Maine-containing the decisions from the July term, 1850, to the July term, 1855. On the 2d of November, 1855, George G. Fogg was appointed, and held the office till May 30, 1859, when he resigned. He published six volumes, numbered 32-37. Mr. Fogg having resigned, William E. Chandler was re-appointed on the 23d of June, 1859, and reported the cases between the July term, 1859, and the July term, 1865-in seven volumes-38-44 Maine. On the 31st of October, 1865, Mr. Chandler resigned, and Amos Hadley, the present reporter, was appointed. He has thus far published four volumes, bringing the cases down to and including the July term, 1869, and the series of New Hampshire reports to volume 48.

The reporter is appointed by the governor, by and with the consent of the council, and is removable at his pleasure. He is required to report only such cases as, in the opinion of the justices, shall establish some new or settle some doubtful point not before adjudicated and reported, or such as are otherwise deemed important. The price of the reports is limited to $3.50 per volume.

VERMONT.

The first reporter of the decisions of the supreme court of Vermont was Nathaniel Chipman, chief justice, who issued one volume containing the decisions

from 1789 to 1791. In 1809 Royal Tyler, chief justice, published two volumes containing the cases from 1801 to 1803. William Brayton published in 1821 a volume of reports containing a collection of cases decided during the period from 1815 to 1819.

In 1823 the legislature passed an act directing the governor, by and with the advice of the council, to appoint a reporter of the decisions of the supreme court, and fixing the salary at four hundred dollars a year with the profits of publication. Daniel Chipman was the first appointed under this act. He published two volumes in 1824, consisting of cases selected from Nathaniel Chipman's reports, of cases decided previous to 1813, and of cases subsequently decided down to 1825. The volume contains a historical sketch of the judicial system of Vermont.

Asa Aikin succeeded Mr. Chipman in 1826, and reported the decisions from the October term, 1826, to the October term, 1827, inclusive, in two volumes. In the mean time, the salary had been increased to six hundred dollars.

In 1827 the acts relating to a reporter were repealed, and the judges were required to prepare the cases for publication, and to furnish copies thereof to the secretary of state. In 1828 the governor was authorized to appoint a suitable person to arrange and have published these cases. Five hundred copies were to be printed, and to be sold by the secretary of state at cost. These reports of the judges began with the December term, 1826, and continued down to the February term, 1837. They are contained in nine volumes, and are cited as the Vermont reports.

In 1837 the legislature again authorized the appointment, annually by the governor, of a reporter, and fixed his salary at seven hundred dollars, together with the profits on the sales. G. B. Shaw was appointed under this act, and reported the decisions down to 1839, in volume 10 of the series, numbering from the first of the judges' reports, and a part of volume 11, when William Western received the appointment, and published four volumes, including volume 11, partly prepared by Mr. Shaw, or volumes 11-14 of the Vermont reports. Mr. Western was succeeded by William Slade, who reported volume 15, and was, in turn, succeeded by Peter T. Washburn, in October, 1847, who issued eight volumes, to wit: 16 to 23 inclusive. John F. Dean was the next reporter, and issued three volumes, making the series known as the Vermont reports, and commencing with the reports of the judges, numbering 26 volumes in all, and bringing the cases down to 1854.

In 1854 Charles L. Williams was elected to the office, and reported the cases to 1857, in three volumes-2729 Vt. William G. Shaw succeeded and published six volumes, bringing the cases down to 1864. He was followed by the present incumbent, Mr. Wheelock G. Veazey, who commenced with the 36th volume, and has so far published seven volumes.

By an act passed in 1863 the reporter is to be elected by the legislature; is required to publish the reports at his own expense, and to give one hundred copies to the state and one for each town at cost price. His salary is fixed at $450 and the profits in the reports. We are not aware of any subsequent statute on the subject.

MASSACHUSETTS.

The first act authorizing the appointment of a reporter in this state was passed in 1803, and was limited

to the term of three years. It was, however, extended from time to time, and finally made perpetual in 1815. Ephraim Williams was first appointed under this act, and held the office for one year-reporting, in one volume, the decisions from the September term, 1804, to the June term, 1805. Mr. Williams having resigned, Dudley Atkins Tyng was appointed, and held the office for sixteen years, and until 1822. He reported the cases decided between the March term, 1806, and the March term, 1822, inclusive, in sixteen volumes. The one volume of Mr. Williams and the sixteen of Mr. Tyng are cited as the Massachusetts Reports.

Mr. Tyng resigned, and was succeeded by Octavius Pickering, who continued to discharge the duties of his office till August, 1839, a period of seventeen years. He reported in all twenty-four volumes, but, for some reason, the volumes did not follow each other consecutively; for instance, the eighteenth and nineteenth volumes were among the last published.

Mr. Pickering resigned in 1839, and Theron Metcalf, author of a treatise on contracts, was appointed to fill the vacancy. He began his labor with the March term, 1840, and continued until the close of 1847, when his elevation to the bench left the office of reporter again vacant. His reports are included in thirteen volumes. Luther S. Cushing was next appointed, and continued to hold the office until 1854, having reported the decisions made between the March term, 1848, and the November term, 1853, in twelve volumes. The decisions between the March term, 1854, and the November term, 1860, were reported by Horace Gray, Jr., in sixteen volumes. For some reason unknown to us, the last two or three volumes of Mr. Gray's reports were not published until some ten years after the decisions were rendered; in fact, the sixteenth volume has only been published within the last four or five months. In 1861 Charles Allen became reporter, and reported the cases from that time to the January term, 1867, in fourteen volumes. Mr. Allen was followed by Albert G. Browne, Jr., the present reporter, who has published, to date, six volumes, beginning with the September term, 1867.

In 1867 the legislature of the state directed that all reports succeeding the last of Mr. Allen's should be designated as the "Massachusetts Reports." In conformity to that act Mr. Browne's first volume was numbered "97 Mass.," there having been ninety-six volumes previously issued. His last volume is the

102d Mass.

A volume of criminal cases was published in 1844 by Mr. Thatcher, containing a selection of cases decided between 1823 and 1843.

RHODE ISLAND.

The first reporter of the decisions of the supreme court of Rhode Island was Joseph K. Angell, well known as a legal text writer, who was appointed by the court in pursuance of an act of the legislature in 1847. Mr. Angell began his labors by collecting the cases decided since 1828; but at the September term, 1849, and when he had completed only about one hundred and forty pages of his first volume, he resigned his office, and was succeeded by Thomas Durfee. Mr. Durfee completed Mr. Angell's volume, and published one of his own, bringing the cases down to 1853. Edwin Metcalf was next appointed, but never published a report. On the 1st of January, 1855, John P. Knowles received the appointment and published but three vol

umes, containing the cases between 1853 and 1856. In 1857, Samuel Ames, chief justice of the court, undertook the labors of reporter, and published four volumes, which include cases from 1853 to 1863. John F. Tobey was then appointed reporter, and continues to fill that office. We are not aware that he has yet published a volume of reports; he has, however, published semiannually for the information of the profession an index to the decisions, and more recently has prefixed to these indexes the decisions themselves. The state being small, the written opinions do not accumulate with sufficient rapidity to enable the reporter to publish them in volumes promptly, and his indexes, no doubt, do much toward removing the inconvenience.

CONNECTICUT.

This state claims the honor of having published the first volume of American reports ever published, as we learn from the preface to the first volume of Connecticut reports (6 Day), in which is given an interesting history of the judiciary of Connecticut, from the earliest times of the colony. We take from that source the following relative to this first venture: "It was among the liberal designs which distinguished the legislature of May, 1784, to lay the foundation of a more perfect and permanent system of common law in this state, by requiring the judges of the supreme court of errors, and of the superior court, to give in writing the reasons of their decisions upon points of law, and lodge them with their respective clerks, with a view, as the statute expressly declares, that the cases might be fully reported.

As it was left to individual enterprise to carry this important object into effect; and as the undertaking would be attended with considerable expense, and interruption of other business, without any prospect of private advantage, no professional gentleman for the period of a few years appeared willing to make the requisite sacrifice. The late Mr. Kirby, who had been in the habit of taking notes for his own use, was at length prevailed upon to extend his views; and in 1789 he presented to the public a volume of reports, comprising the cases adjudged in the superior court, from the year 1785 to May, 1788, with some determinations in the supreme court of errors."

The decisions of the superior court and the supreme court of errors from July, 1789, to 1798, together with several cases decided anterior to that time, were reported by Jesse Root, a judge of the superior court, in two volumes. Thomas Day was the next reporter, and reported in five volumes the decisions of the supreme court of errors, with some decisions in the United States circuit court for the district, from 1802 to 1813, inclusive. These reports are cited as Day's Reports. Mr. Day continued reporter until 1852, and reported the decisions from June, 1814, to that date in twenty-one volumes, which are designated and cited as "Connecticut Reports." William N. Matson succeeded Mr. Day, and issued three volumes containing the cases from 1852 to 1856; also cited as Conn. Rep. 22-24. John Hooker, the present reporter, was appointed to the office in 1856. He began with volume 25 of the Connecticut reports and the cases of 1856, and has, to this writing, published eleven volumes, or from 25 to 35 of the series denominated Connecticut Reports.

The following is a resumé of the reports published in the five New England states, with the periods covered by them:

« AnteriorContinuar »