Walter v. Bacon

8 Mass. 468
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1812
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 8 Mass. 468 (Walter v. Bacon) 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
Walter v. Bacon, 8 Mass. 468 (Mass. 1812).

Opinion

The action was continued for advisement to this term ; and now

By the Court.

We decided in the case of Baxter vs. Taber, cited in the argument, that by the laws then in force, the sessions could not make any lands a part of the prison-yard, except the land belonging to the county, with the public ways leading to the prison. In the decision of that cause we expressed our apprehensions that some inconvenient effects znight result from the law thus made known. The legislature, at the ensuing session, passed the law which has been the subject of discussion in this cause, with an intention to prevent those effects; and the question to be now decided is, whether the legislature, in passing that act, exceeded

their constitutional powers. And *we see no provision of the constitution of this commonwealth, or of that of the United States, which prohibits the enacting such a law.

The statute was well likened by the defendant’s counsel to laws frequently made to confirm the acts and doings of towns and other [393]*393corporations, which have been void for some informality, and in reviving terms of courts which have failed from accidents. Such acts have never been questioned on constitutional ground. Yet the same objections would lie against them, as have been urged against the one under consideration. Upon the whole, the legislature had an undoubted right to pass this act; and by its provisions the defendants are saved from the penalty of their bond.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Roth v. Waterfield
1933 OK 546 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Eastman v. McCarten
45 A. 1081 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1899)
State ex rel. Brown v. McPeak
47 N.W. 691 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1891)
Forster v. Forster
129 Mass. 559 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Jones v. Davis
6 Neb. 33 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1877)
Jordan v. Wimer
45 Iowa 65 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1876)
Iowa Railroad Land v. Soper
39 Iowa 112 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)
Mann v. City of Utica
44 How. Pr. 334 (New York Supreme Court, 1872)
Winchester v. Inhabitants of Corinna
55 Me. 9 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1866)
State v. Kline
23 Ark. 587 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1861)
Denny v. Mattoon
84 Mass. 361 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1861)
Allen v. Archer
49 Me. 346 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1860)
Streubel v. Milwaukee & Mississippi Railroad
12 Wis. 67 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1860)
Wildes v. Vanvoorhis
81 Mass. 139 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1860)
Rich v. Flanders
39 N.H. 304 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
Morse v. . Goold
11 N.Y. 281 (New York Court of Appeals, 1854)
Davison v. Johonnot
48 Mass. 388 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1844)
City of Bridgeport v. Housatonuc Railroad
15 Conn. 475 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1843)
Simmons v. Inhabitants of Hanover
40 Mass. 188 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1839)
Thayer v. Seavey
11 Me. 284 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1834)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Mass. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-v-bacon-mass-1812.