Inhabitants of Medway v. Inhabitants of Natick

7 Mass. 88
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1810·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

* By the Court.

Two questions are referred to our [ * 89 ] decision in this case.— 1. Whether the legislature had authority, within the constitution, (the parties probably intending the declaration of rights prefixed to the constitution,) to declare a marriage of a white person with a mulatto to be absolutely null and void. It is unnecessary for us to declare any opinion we may have formed upon this question; as our opinion upon the second question, viz. whether the pauper is a mulatto, is sufficient for the decision of this action. And it is our unanimous opinion, that a mulatto is a person begotten between a white and a black. This is the definition given by the best lexicographers, and we believe it also to agree with the popular use of the term. The pauper’s father, in this case, was a mulatto, and her mother was a white woman. The pauper is then not a mulatto. According to the agreement of the parties, there must be judgment for the plaintiffs.

Footnotes

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

Inhabitants of Medway v. Inhabitants of Natick, 7 Mass. 88 (Mass. 1810).

7 Mass. 88 (Inhabitants of Medway v. Inhabitants of Natick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Doe on the demise of Lafontaine v. Avaline
8 Ind. 6 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1856)
Thurman v. State
18 Ala. 276 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1850)