Fowler v. Bebee

Mass.

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Citations: 8 Tyng 231, 9 Mass. 231

Decision Date: 1812-09

Jurisdiction: MA

Bluebook Citation: Fowler v. Bebee, 8 Tyng 231, 9 Mass. 231 (Mass. 1812)


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 80 decisions
80
Citing decisions
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

1
1
5
5
14
15
12
7
4
5
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1810s1830s1840s1850s1860s1870s1880s1890s1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1970s1980s2000s2020s

Courts citing this case

Mass.16
Me.5
U.S.4
Ark.3
N.Y. Sup. Ct.3
6th Cir.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2022Harry Calcutt III v. FDIC 6th Cir.
  • 2001Commonwealth v. Vaidulas Mass.
  • 1986Appley v. Locke Mass.
  • 1978Jackson Redevelopment Authority v. King, Inc. Miss.
  • 1945City of Lawrence v. Commissioners of Public Works Mass.
  • 1937Commonwealth v. DiStasio Mass.
  • 1937Lesem v. Getty Cal. Dist. Ct. App.
  • 1930Ridout v. State Tenn.
  • 1927Sevigny v. Lizotte Mass.
  • 1925Moloney v. Selectmen of Milford Mass.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Benjamin R. Fowler versus Artemas Bebee and Another.

Attorneys

  • Lathrop in support of the demurrer.
  • Bliss for the defendants.
  • The Solicitor-General in reply.
majority Parsons, C. J.

The question, which, by the plea before us, we are called on to decide in this action, is, whether the service of the original writ by Rodney Ray was legal.

That Jonathan Smith, Jun., is sheriff of the county of Hampden defacto, is very certain; but whether he is sheriff c'e jute, is the question made by the defendants.

Mr. Smith is no party to this record, nor can he be legally heard in the discussion of this plea; although our decision would as effectually decide on his title to the office, * as if he were a This would be a man unheard, contrary to natural equity, and the policy of the law. From considerations like these has arisen the distinction between the holding of .an office de facto and dejure.

We do not decide whether he is sheriff de jure of the county of Hampden, or has intruded himself into the office. • But as we are of opinion that he is sheriff in fact of that county, the plea in abatement must be adjudged bad, and the defendants ordered to answer further.

If an action should be commenced against one claiming to be sheriff, for an act which he does not justify, bul as sheriff; or if an information should be filed, calling on such a one to show cause why he claimed to hold that office; in either case he would be a party ; and the legality of his commission" rnignt come in question, and meet a regular decision,

Respondeos ouster awarded.

[Commonwealth vs Fowler, 10 Mass. Rep. 290.— Bucknam vs. Ruggles, 15 Mass Rep. 180. — The People vs. Collins, 7 Johns. Rep. 549. — M’Instry vs. Tanner, 9 Johns Rep. 135. —Ed.]

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.