Colby v. Dillingham

Decided June 15, 1811

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1811-06-15

In a case stated by the parties in this action, it was agreed that the defendant Dillingham is a deputy sheriff for this county; that the original writ in the action was directed to the coroners of the county, or any of them, and was served on all the defendants by Daniel Evans, a coroner for the county, duly qualified, and also a deputy sheriff of the same county, occasionally executing the duties of each of those offices.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1811-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1917

10 state decisions

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 →

The Court

¶1observed that it was improper to bring a matter, which, if there was any question upon it, was proper for a plea in abatement to the writ, before them in the form of a case stated. But, as the question regarded practice, and they entertained no doubts upon it, they would express their opinion, that Evans, in his *398character of coroner, might well serve the writ. The sheriff was answerable for his conduct as one of his deputies, but not for his doings as a coroner.

¶2Judgment for the plaintiff.