Little v. Conant

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Little v. Conant

19 Mass. 527

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Mass. 527 (Little v. Conant) 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

Little v. Conant, 19 Mass. 527 (Mass. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

This was an action of debt, in which it was alleged that the defendants had wilfully and without license, cut, felled, destroyed and carried away certain forest trees growing on the plaintiff’s land, contrary to the form of St. 1817, c. 173, whereby they had rendered themselves liable to him in a sum equal to five times the value of the trees. The defendants pleaded nil debet, and a license. During the pendency of the action the plaintiff died ; and the Court now dismissed it, saying that it was brought to recover damages for a wrong done, and that according to the case of Hambly v. Trott, 1 Cowp. 371, it did not survive. — See Com. Dig. Administration, B, 15 ; Wentw. Off. Ex. (ed. 1728) 126 ; Johns v. Carne, Cro. Eliz. 621 ; Wortley v. Herpingham, ibid. 766 ; [560]*560Coppin v. Carter, 1 T. R. 462 ; Aleworth v. Roberts, 1 Lev. 39 ; Moreton’s case, 1 Vent. 30 ; Anon., 1 Vern. 60 ; Palmer v. Stebbins, 1 Pick. 71.²

²

At common law no action founded in tort and in which the plea was “ not guilty,” was held to survive against the executor or administrator of the tortfeasor. Nicholson v. Elton, 13 Serg. & Rawle, 416 ; Hambly v. Trott, Cowp. 375 ; Cutler v Browne, 2 Haywood, 182 ; Crane v. Crane, 4 Halsted, 173 ; People v. Gibbs, 9 Wendell, 29. See Miller v. Umbehower, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 31 ; Hawkins v. Glass, 1 Bibb, 246. And the death of the defendant, in all actions, whether sounding in tort or contract, was pleadable in abatement. Com. Dig. Abatement, H, 34. But by St. 1822, c. 110, the actions of trover and replevin, and by St. 1834, c. 2, actions of trespass and trespass on the case for injuries to personal property, are made to survive against an executor or administrator. And by St. 1783, c. 32, all actions which by law survive as it respects their causes, and by St. 1822, c. 110, the actions of trover and replevin, and by St. 1834, c. 2, actions of trespass and trespass on the ease for injuries to personal property, if commenced and pending in court against a testator or intestate, may be prosecuted to final judgment against his executor or administrator. [See Revised St. c. 93, § 7, 8.]

By statute in Virginia, trespass for mesne profits of land recovered in eject, ment, lies against an executor. Lee v. Cooke, Gilner, 331

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

This was an action of debt, in which it was alleged that the defendants had wilfully and without license, cut, felled, destroyed and carried away certain forest trees growing on the plaintiff’s land, contrary to the form of St. 1817, c. 173, whereby they had rendered themselves liable to him in a sum equal to five times the value of the trees. The defendants pleaded nil debet, and a license. During the pendency of the action the plaintiff died ; and the Court now dismissed it, saying that it was brought to recover damages for a wrong done, and that according to the case of Hambly v. Trott, 1 Cowp. 371, it did not survive. — See Com. Dig. Administration, B, 15 ; Wentw. Off. Ex. (ed. 1728) 126 ; Johns v. Carne, Cro. Eliz. 621 ; Wortley v. Herpingham, ibid. 766 ; [560]*560Coppin v. Carter, 1 T. R. 462 ; Aleworth v. Roberts, 1 Lev. 39 ; Moreton’s case, 1 Vent. 30 ; Anon., 1 Vern. 60 ; Palmer v. Stebbins, 1 Pick. 71.²

²

At common law no action founded in tort and in which the plea was “ not guilty,” was held to survive against the executor or administrator of the tortfeasor. Nicholson v. Elton, 13 Serg. & Rawle, 416 ; Hambly v. Trott, Cowp. 375 ; Cutler v Browne, 2 Haywood, 182 ; Crane v. Crane, 4 Halsted, 173 ; People v. Gibbs, 9 Wendell, 29. See Miller v. Umbehower, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 31 ; Hawkins v. Glass, 1 Bibb, 246. And the death of the defendant, in all actions, whether sounding in tort or contract, was pleadable in abatement. Com. Dig. Abatement, H, 34. But by St. 1822, c. 110, the actions of trover and replevin, and by St. 1834, c. 2, actions of trespass and trespass on the case for injuries to personal property, are made to survive against an executor or administrator. And by St. 1783, c. 32, all actions which by law survive as it respects their causes, and by St. 1822, c. 110, the actions of trover and replevin, and by St. 1834, c. 2, actions of trespass and trespass on the ease for injuries to personal property, if commenced and pending in court against a testator or intestate, may be prosecuted to final judgment against his executor or administrator. [See Revised St. c. 93, § 7, 8.]

By statute in Virginia, trespass for mesne profits of land recovered in eject, ment, lies against an executor. Lee v. Cooke, Gilner, 331

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Mass. 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-conant-mass-1824.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack