Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Mass. 170

Nason v. Dillingham

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1818-06-15

This was a writ of entry, in which the said Nason demanded a certain pew in the meeting-house in the south parish of Augusta. His title was by virtue of an execution duly levied on the pew on the 22d of March, 1817. The tenant also claimed by virtue of another execution, levied on the 2d of January preceding.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1818-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1883

10 state decisions

3018181820183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1By the statute of 1783, c. 43, § 1, describing the duty and power of coroners, it is required that, “ before they enter upon the duties of their office, they shall *be sworn to the faithful discharge thereof, and give security before they proceed to act, in the same manner as sheriffs by law are obliged to do.” The statute of 1783, c. 44, <§> 1, contains the provision respecting the security to be given by sheriffs, and enacts that, if they shall neglect to give the security required at the next Court of Common Pleas holden in their county after their appointment, all services done by them afterwards, and before they give the security, shall be null and void. But, by the statute of 1794, c. 53, this latter provision is repealed ; and by the statute of 1813, c. 189, the provisions of the act of 1794 are extended to coroners.

¶2Perkins was, then, an officer de facto. His commission, and his having taken and subscribed the oaths and declaration, constituted *159him such; and, however he may be liable to the action of those who suffer by his doings, third persons, who'derive their title under his1 official acts, are not to be affected in their rights by his neglect of giving the security the law required of him.

¶3Fuller for the demandant.

¶4Emmons for the tenant, (a)

¶5Demandant nonsuit

¶6 Vide Buckman vs. Ruggles, post, 180, and cases in the note.

/15/mass/170 · .json · Public domain