Job Durfee

The case concerned a promissory note issued by a dissolved partnership, on which the plaintiffs later entered into statutory compositions discharging two of the three former partners individually, while preserving their right to sue the remaining partner, Ross. Ross raised the statute of limitations as a defense. The court ruled that the compositions and payments did not renew the note or remove the demand from the statute of limitations. It reasoned that the statute severs joint liability by allowing individual compromises that discharge the debtor without any new promise binding the undischarged partners, in contrast to common-law rules for joint obligations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a criminal indictment against Benjamin P. Wilbor for an offense under a statute authorizing town councils to grant licenses, with the defendant moving to arrest judgment based on a later amendatory act that altered how penalties were distributed between towns and complainants. The court overruled the motion and upheld the proceedings. It reasoned that the court's common-law authority to adjudicate criminal cases derives from its organization rather than specific statutes, and that the amendment did not repeal the underlying offense or penalty but only changed the mode of distributing any fine recovered. Because the offense occurred after the amendment, the statutes could be construed together consistently to allow judgment without retroactive effect or inconsistency in the penalty itself.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a lawsuit by contractors against a town treasurer for payment on bridge construction work in Smithfield after the original written contract with the town's committee proved impossible to perform due to the mathematical requirements of the arch design. The defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the plaintiffs had pleaded and proved a different contract than the written one, that evidence of abandonment was improperly admitted, and that the jury should have been instructed on the need for a formal committee meeting to adopt a new agreement. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the original contract was void from the start as self-contradictory and thus could not be abandoned, that a majority of the committee could validly bind the town, and that the facts supported the inference that the substitute contract was properly authorized with due notice to all members. The court further found that any instructional omissions did not prejudice the defendant given the evidence presented.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the effect of a 1846 statutory amendment on pending indictments for violations of an earlier liquor licensing law, which had required penalties to be split between the state and the town where the offense occurred. The amendment changed the distribution to split penalties between the state and the complainant and repealed inconsistent provisions of the prior act without a saving clause. The court held that judgments could be entered under the old distribution rules only for indictments in which convictions had already been obtained before the amendment took effect; all other pending indictments, including those for pre-amendment offenses where no conviction had yet occurred, had to be dismissed. The reasoning centered on the amendment's prospective language, the requirement that any judgment match the process and rights established at the time it was sought, and the principle that the legislature could not retroactively transfer penalty rights from towns to complainants.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved John Gordon's motion for a new trial after his conviction in a criminal prosecution related to the death of Amasa Sprague. The court addressed claims that evidence of threats made by Gordon's brother Nicholas against the deceased should not have been admitted, along with issues regarding a witness reading from trial notes. The court overruled the motion, holding that the evidence was properly admitted because testimony established the close brotherly and dependent relationship between John and Nicholas, making Nicholas's threats relevant to show possible motive for John. The court further found that the admission of the witness notes did not constitute error, as they were accurate and no prejudice resulted. The opinion concluded that the evidence was relevant to the issues and could be considered by the jury.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a bill in equity filed by J.M. Daniels to redeem a one-seventh interest in mortgaged property known as the Branch Factory estate in Smithfield, following multiple assignments of the mortgage and the equity of redemption, as well as a statutory surrender by an intermediate holder and subsequent agreements extending the redemption period. The court held that the complainant retained the right to redeem despite stipulations in the 1838 agreement that purported to bar filing any bill during the extension year and to effect foreclosure upon nonpayment. The core reasoning was that the parties' intent to eliminate the legal remedy of redemption while extending the right itself was contradictory and unenforceable, rendering those provisions voidable, though the remainder of the contract remained binding such that redemption required payment of the principal, legal interest, the excess of compound over simple interest, expenses, and costs.

propertyprocedure