v. Woolstanton, 223. Runger v. Fogassa, 209. Rue v. Alter, 164. v. St. Nscholas in Ipswich, 223, Ruchamboye v. Mottichmed, 274. Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal, 353. Snell v. Bridgwater & Co., 273. Spicer v. Cooper, 177. Sprague v. City of Worcester, 394. Specht v. Commonwealth, 466, 564. Stryker v. Kelly, 146, 224, 412. Stradling v. Morgan, 190. The Warden of St. Pauls v. The Dean, 223, 218. The Bishop's Case, 159. The Dean of Ely v. Bliss, 155. The King v. Airey, 150. Stanton v. University of Oxford, 110, The Protector v. Ashfield, 123. The Chancellor of Oxford's Case, 147. The Prince's Case, 148. The City of London v. Wood, 150. The Irresistable, 157. The Fashion v. Ward, 179. The Hunter, 183. The Case of Fines, 182. The Stafford Justices, 188. The Forrester, 180. Stuyvesant v. The Mayor of N. Y., 451. The Providence Ins. Co., 223. Stitwell v. Raynor, 463. Story v. Furman, 472. State of New Jersey v. Wilson, 478. State v. Barnhard, 507. v. Bendergrass, 519. 66 v. Burnham, 544. 66 v. McLean, 226. Stanley v. Webb, 548, 549. Strong v. Stebbins, 246. The Salpetre Case, 449. The Enterprise, 245. The Queen v. King and Amr., 252. The Independence, 354. The Boston & Roxbury Milldam Corpo- The Railroad Bridge Co., 426. The Derby Turnpike Co. v. Parks, 478. St. Peters, York, Dean & Ch. v. Middle- Thomas v. Walker, 93. Stearns v. United States, 353. borough, 261. Starkwether v. Loomis, 359. Stephenson v. Bannister, 360. v. Hatch, 198. Stewart v. Gray, 360. Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 472, 475, 476, 477, 672, 118, 350. Supervisors of Niagara v. The People, Sudbury & Erie RR. Co. v. Cooper, 61. v. Croswell, 548. Thompson v. Howe, 160. 66 v. Sergeant, 223. 66 v. Philips, 353. 66 v. Lee County, 422. 66 v. State, 483. .Thorn v. Blanchard, 542. Todd v. Kerr, 483, 486. Tolen v. Tolen, 482. Torrington v. Haregraves, 110, 117, 160. Tooker v. Thompson, 359, 360. Tolson v. Kage, 148. Tracy v. Suydham, 148. Troy & Boston RR. Co. v. Northern Trustees of Cuyahoga v. McKaughey, 165. Twenty-eight Casks of Wine, 251. Tyte v. Glowden, 254. v. Dichron, 214. Van Horne v. Dorrance, 145, 185, 242, 257, 337, 390, 403. 66 66 66 Van Rensselaer v. Snyder, 155, 472, 473. v. Livingston, 163. v. Kearney, 353. Van Schaick v. Edwards, 246. Van Wormer v. Mayor of Albany, 447. Vandercar v. Ren. & Sar. RR. Co., 158. Vischer v. Vischer, 482, 483. Voorhees and Wife v. Presbyterian Church of Amsterdam, 287. Voorhees v. Bank of United States, 119. v. Voorhees, 55. Vrooman v. Jones, 62. W Wallis v. Hodson, 191. Walker v. Sherman, 288. 66 v. Earl Grosvenor, 644. Waller v. Harris, 144, 184, 193. Walter v. Bacon, 165. Waring v. Jackson, 196, 353. United States Trust Co. v. U. S. Fire Warner v. Hadner, 247. Ins. Co., 222. United States v. Winn, 245. Warne v. Varley, 249. Ward v. Snell, 254. 66 66 v. Wilson, 245. Waterhouse v. Kean, 256, 286. v. Wilberger, 245. Watson v. Tarpley, 354. v. Ragsdale, 245. v. Morris, 245. Wayman v. Southard, 354. Warren v. Flagg, 359. v. Probasco, 251. v. Irvin, 272. v. Windle, 159. Warren Manufac. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 163, 360. 66 66 377, 426. v. Railroad Bridge, 292, Wager v. Troy & Union RR. Co., 375, 377. Warrender v. Warrender, 96. Waterford & Whitehall Turnpike Co. v. 66 v. Cooper, 353, 165. Wilcox v. Wilcox, 482. Williamson v. Berry, 354. Wilson v. The Blackbird Marsh Creek Wilson v. Mayor of New York, 425. Webb v. The Manchester & Leeds RR. Wittiers v. Buckley, 400. Co., 258. A GENERAL TREATISE ON STATUTES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTARY. OF THE DEFINITION OF STATUTES, ANCIENT AND MODERN. THEIR ORIGIN, INCIDENTS, &c. STATUTE LAWS, their definition, origin, manner of enactment, forms, authentication, promulgation, force, interpretation, limitations, variety and incidents, are the subject of this work.' History, as well as experience, has taught us, that in every civilized community, however high or low it may rank in the scale of intelligence, there is an absolute necessity for the existence of a power for the administration of justice. This necessity is so absolute and indispensable, that all social institutions, whatever may be their object, seek to provide some recognized authority to admin NOTE 1.—While the design of this work is to present to the profession, an American treatise on statutes and constitutional law, the labor assumed, is greatly relieved, and the performance of the duty, (it is believed) more satisfactorily discharged, by adopting, as far as it is practicable, a work of approved and standard authority, in all the courts of England and America, upon the subject of statutes. There is, perhaps, no writer, in either country, whose work upon the construction of statutes, has been more universally regarded by the courts and bar, as authority, than the "Treatise upon Statutes, by Sir Fortunatis Dwarris, Knt. B. A. of Oxford, F. R. S., F. S. A. of England." The text of this author, in that part of his treatise, which has application to statutes generally, will be adopted in this work. This will supply an almost importunate demand by the profession, for a republication in America, of that standard, and greatly desired work. To this original of Dwarris, will be added by original text, and also by notes of authority, such views of American law on the construction of statutes, as can be brought within the scope of the work, with American authority upon Constitutional limitations, and legislative powers; and also, views of construction upon such subjects of statute law as have no existence in England, or such as remain untouched by the English author, with a chapter upon parliamentary law and the law of parliamentary privilege. |