TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Southworth v. Packard

Wilbour Southworth, in Error, versus Elijah Packard

Southworth v. Packard, 7 Mass. 95 (1810)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1810
Citations
7 Mass. 95
Headnotes
A judgment of the Common Pleas will not be reversed on error, because 'the items of the bill of costs do not appear. A release of damages by a husband, for the personal abuse of his wife, is a good bar to a joint action by husband and wife for the same cause.
Summary
This was a writ of error, brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for this county, rendered upon the report of referees, appointed pursuant to the statute of 1786, c. 21. The demand made by Packard against Southworth, which was annexed to the submission, was for “ abuse done to Packard's wife.” The referees reported that Packard should recover of Southworth, as damage for his abuse of Packard’s wife, the sum of 50 dollars, and all costs of prosecution accrued in consequence of the same taxed at 40 dollars 48 cents.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Curia.

The objection to the bill of costs should have been made at the Common Pleas, when the report was made and the costs were taxed. We must presume them to be the regular costs of this process. As to the objection, that the wife has not joined in the demand, there may have been an injury to the wife, for which the husband was entitled to his separate action; and whether such was the fact here or not, for any species of the injury to the wife, the husband may release the damages ; and the judgment complained of will be a good bar to a joint action, by husband and wife, for the same cause.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1861–1862: 11867–1868: 11871–1872: 11879–1880: 11885–1886: 11893–1894: 21895–1896: 11905–1906: 118612026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Henneger v. Lomas32 L.R.A. 848 (Ind. 1896)
  2. Dimmey v. Wheeling & E. G. Railroad27 W. Va. 32 (1885)
  3. Wood v. Leach69 Me. 555 (1879)
  4. Nolin v. Pearson77 N.E. 890 (Mass. 1906)
  5. Pennsylvania Railroad v. Goodenough28 A. 3 (N.J. 1893)
  6. Mann v. Marsh35 Barb. 68 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1861)

Most recent

  1. Nolin v. Pearson77 N.E. 890 (Mass. 1906)
  2. Henneger v. Lomas32 L.R.A. 848 (Ind. 1896)
  3. McGrew v. McGrew9 Haw. 475 (1894) · Dissent
  4. Pennsylvania Railroad v. Goodenough28 A. 3 (N.J. 1893)
  5. Dimmey v. Wheeling & E. G. Railroad27 W. Va. 32 (1885)
  6. Wood v. Leach69 Me. 555 (1879)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list