Yarter v. Flagg

9 N.E. 649, 143 Mass. 280, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 285
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 7, 1887·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

W. Allen, J.

The Pub. Sts. c. 99, §§ 1, 2, in giving an action of tort to a common informer to recover of the owner of a place in which property is lost by gaming treble the value thereof, provide for the recovery of a penalty; and the action does not survive against the representatives of the defendant, either at common law or by the Pub. Sts. e. 165, § 1.

The assumption on which the argument for the plaintiff is founded, that, prior to the General Statutes, the action to recover a like penalty survived because the form of the action was debt, is unwarranted. The earlier statutes, passed when debt was the common action for penalties, (St. 1793, c. 43, § 4; Rev. Sts. e. 118, § 42,) gave a qui tarn action of debt to recover a penalty, one half of which was for the use of the Commonwealth. The General Statutes, passed after the Practice Act (St. 1852, c. 312, § 2) had provided that tort should include all actions for penalties, prescribed the action of tort, and gave the whole penalty to the informer. St. 1785, a. 58. Rev. Sts. e. 50, § 12. St. 1837, o, 179. Gen. Sts. c. 85, § 1. Plainly neither action can survive against a defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Yarter v. Flagg, 9 N.E. 649, 143 Mass. 280, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 285 (Mass. 1887).

9 N.E. 649 (Yarter v. Flagg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donovan v. Eastern Racing Ass'n
86 N.E.2d 903 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Putnam v. Savage
244 Mass. 83 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
E. S. Parks Shellac Co. v. Harris
129 N.E. 617 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Aylsworth v. Curtis
33 L.R.A. 110 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1896)