Commonwealth v. Smith

Decided March 15, 1813

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1813-03-15

<p>This Court will not give an opinion to the law officers of the government, whether an order of the House of Representatives is a sufficient authority for them to pray process against one who exercises the office of sheriff; because the officer de facto has a right to be heard before any such opinion be given.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1927

1 federal appellate · 3 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

¶1declined, on their part, to interfere with any advice on the subject, and ordered the following entry to * be made of record, viz.: “ And now the Court decline to give any opinion, whether the said order of the House of Representatives contains sufficient power and authority for the said attorney-general and solicitor-general to prosecute this information, previous to the issuing of process thereon ; because the said Jonathan Smith hath a right to be heard before any such opinion be given.” (a)

¶2 [What necessity was there for any authority from the legislature P In the Commonwealth vs. Fowler, (10 Mass. Rep. 290,) it was held that an information in such case might be filed by the attorney-general ex officio, and that the order of the House of Representatives had no operation to extend, or limit his official duties. And see The People vs. The Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. Rep. 358. — Ed.]