Berry v. Ripley

1 Mass. 167
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1804·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The Court

(Strong, Sedgwick, and Thacher, justices) told the Solicitor-General he need not reply. They said the case was too plain to argue; that it was impossible to extend a penal statute, by implication, in the manner contended for, and unanimously reversed the judgment for the first error assigned. The Court gave no opinion as to any other error.

Judgment reversed.

(No costs allowed upon the writ of error, judgment being reversed for error in law.)

The entry of reversal was entered—“ And now, because it appears to the Court here that the said Nathaniel Ripley was not, by the said sixth section of the act in his declaration mentioned, entitled to recover the penalty in the said section expressed, as by his declaration aforesaid he has demanded, it is considered, &c.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Berry v. Ripley, 1 Mass. 167 (Mass. 1804).

1 Mass. 167 (Berry v. Ripley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sullivan v. Stevens
9 Mass. App. Div. 157 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1944)
State v. Gaunt
9 P. 55 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1885)
Lowenberg v. . the People
27 N.Y. 336 (New York Court of Appeals, 1863)
Lowenberg v. People
5 Park. Cr. 414 (New York Supreme Court, 1863)