Commonwealth v. Clary

8 Mass. 72
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1811
StatusPublished
Cited by59 cases

This text of 8 Mass. 72 (Commonwealth v. Clary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Clary, 8 Mass. 72 (Mass. 1811).

Opinion

The action stood continued nisi for advisement; and at the following March term in Suffolk, the Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court, to the following effect: —

On the facts agreed in this case we are of opinion, that the territory, on which the offence charged is agreed to have been committed, is the territory of the United States, over which the congress have the exclusive power of legislation. The assent of the commonwealth to the purchase of this territory by the United States, had this condition annexed to it — that civil and criminal process might be served therein by the officers of the commonwealth. This condition was made with a view to prevent the territory * from becoming, a sanctuary for debtors and criminals; and from the subsequent assent of the United Stales to the said condition, evidenced by their making the pur [68]*68chase, it results that the officers of the commonwealth, in executing such process, act under the authority of the United States. No offences committed within that territory, are committed against the laws of this commonwealth; nor can such offences be punishable by the" courts of the commonwealth, unless the congress of the United States should give to the said courts jurisdiction thereof.

Ashmun for the defendant.

As a consequence of these positions, it is the opinion of the Court, that they have no cognizance of the offences charged in this indictment, and that the defendant must be discharged.

An objection occurred to the minds of some members of the Court, that if the laws of the commonwealth have no force within this territory, the inhabitants thereof cannot exercise any civil or political privileges, under the laws of Massachusetts, within the town of Springfield. We are agreed that such consequence necessarily follows; and we think that no hardship is thereby imposed on those inhabitants; because they are not interested in any elections made within the state, or held to pay any taxes imposed by its authority, nor bound by any of its laws. — And it might be very inconvenient to the United States to have their laborers, artificers, officers, and other persons employed in their service, subjected to the services required by the commonwealth of the inhabitants of the several towns.

It will be noticed, that in this decision we make a distinction between persons who actually dwell within the territory owned by the United States, and the laborers and artificers employed therein, who have their dwelling elsewhere.

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

Related

Cobb v. Cobb
545 N.E.2d 1161 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1989)
State v. Allard
313 A.2d 439 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1973)
Langdon v. Jaramillo
454 P.2d 269 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1969)
Rothfels v. Southworth
356 P.2d 612 (Utah Supreme Court, 1960)
Adams v. Londeree
83 S.E.2d 127 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1954)
Arledge v. Mabry
197 P.2d 884 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1948)
Kiker v. Philadelphia
31 A.2d 289 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)
Yellow Cab Transit Co. v. Johnson
48 F. Supp. 594 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1942)
Herken v. Glynn
101 P.2d 946 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1940)
James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula
309 U.S. 94 (Supreme Court, 1940)
West India Oil Co. v. Sancho Bonet
54 P.R. 695 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1939)
Employers' Liability Assurance Ltd. v. DiLeo
10 N.E.2d 251 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
People v. Suárez
51 P.R. 877 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1937)
Pueblo v. Suárez
51 P.R. Dec. 903 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1937)
Commonwealth v. King
68 S.W.2d 45 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Claim of Walsh v. Apt. Engineering & Contracting Co.
240 A.D. 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
Dicks v. Dicks
170 S.E. 245 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook
281 U.S. 647 (Supreme Court, 1930)
Lowe v. Lowe
133 A. 729 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1926)
School District No. 20 v. Steele
195 N.W. 448 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Mass. 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-clary-mass-1811.