Little v. Conant
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
19 Mass. 527 (Little v. Conant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.