ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF CASES

    (From the 1865 Edition)

    SEQUENTIAL AND ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF CASES

    Pages in the new edition are collated to the original Quincy Reports 1865 pages.

    note: In the new edition, cases following Draper v. Bicknell (Case No. 45), Quincy Reports, p. 164 (1765) are in Quincy Papers, vol. 5. All earlier cases are in Quincy Papers, vol. 4. With many thanks to Charles Riordan and Patricia Tarabelsi, Editorial Assistants to the Monan Chair.

    SEQUENTIAL TABLE OF CASES

    [Quincy’s Reports, Part One, 1761–1765]

    Quincy Papers, vol. 4

    case no. case name quincy reports (1865) page no. volume 4 page no.

    1

    Poor v. Dougherty (1762)

    1

    78

    2

    Baker v. Frobisher (1762)

    4

    86

    3

    Ingraham v. Cook et al. (1762)

    4

    90

    4

    Newman v. Homans (1762)

    5

    94

    5

    Zuill v. Bradley (1762)

    6

    98

    6

    Blower v. Campbell (1762)

    8

    102

    7

    Jones v. Belcher (1762)

    9

    104

    8

    Minot v. Prout (1762)

    9

    106

    9

    Dudley v. Dudley et al. (1762)

    12

    110

    10

    Jackson v. Foye (1762)

    26

    128

    11

    Wiswall v. Hall (1762)

    27

    132

    12

    Sayer et al. v. Thorp et al. (1762)

    28

    136

    13

    Oliver v. Sale (1762)

    29

    140

    14

    Hallowell v. Dalton (1762)

    33

    150

    15

    Gould v. Stevens (1762)

    34

    152

    n/a

    Memorandum of 1762, Members of the Bar

    35

    156

    16

    Wrentham Proprietors v. Metcalf (1763)

    36

    158

    17

    Derumple v. Clark (1763)

    38

    164

    18

    Daniels v. Bullard (1763)

    41

    172

    19

    Barnes v. Greenleaf (1763)

    41

    174

    20

    Elwell v. Pierson (1763)

    42

    178

    21

    Russell v. Oakes (1763)

    49

    188

    22

    Paxton’s Case of Writ of Assistance (1761)

    51

    194

    23

    Ruddock v. Gordon (1763)

    58

    208

    24

    Gardiner v. Purrington (1763)

    59

    212

    25

    Rogers v. Kenwrick (1763)

    62

    218

    26

    Girdley v. Balston et al. (1763)

    65

    224

    27

    Brown v. Culnan (1763)

    66

    228

    28

    Dunten v. Richards (1763)

    67

    230

    29

    Baker v. Mattocks (1763)

    69

    234

    30

    Scollay v. Dunn (1763)

    74

    246

    31

    Angier v. Jackson (1763)

    84

    270

    32

    Poor v. Doble (1763)

    86

    276

    33

    Lovell v. Doble (1763)

    88

    280

    34

    Dom. Rex v. Doaks (1763)

    90

    286

    35

    Dom. Rex v. Gay (1763)

    91

    290

    36

    Allison v. Cockran (1764)

    94

    296

    37

    Hanlon v. Thayer (1764)

    99

    306

    38

    Dom. Rex v. Pourksdorff (1764)

    104

    314

    39

    Ballard v. McLean (1764)

    106

    320

    40

    Bromfield v. Little (1764)

    108

    324

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (March Term, 1765) (“Charge Number 1”)

    110

    328

    41

    Whitney v. Whitney (1765)

    117

    340

    42

    Banister v. Henderson (1765)

    119

    344

    43

    Rochester Proprietors v. Hammond (1765)

    159

    400

    44

    Dom. Rex v. Mangent (1765)

    162

    406

    45

    Draper v. Bicknell (1765)

    164

    412

    ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF CASES

    [Quincy’s Reports, Part One, 1761–1765]

    Quincy Papers, vols. 4 and 5

    vol. no. case no. case name quincy reports (1865) page no. volumes 4 & 5 page no.

    4

    36

    Allison v. Cockran (1764)

    94

    296

    4

    31

    Angier v. Jackson (1763)

    84

    270

    5

    76

    Anonymous (1770) [A hypothetical Quincy case similar to Fowle v. Richardson, 1770, in which Quincy was counsel. See annotations to Case 76.] [Note, Chronological Break-this is a Trowbridge Manuscript reproduced by Samuel Quincy]

    370

    780

    5

    53

    Apthorp et al. v. Eyres (1766)

    229

    556

    5

    62

    Apthorp v. Shepard (1768)

    298

    660

    4

    2

    Baker v. Frobisher (1762)

    4

    86

    4

    29

    Baker v. Mattocks (1763)

    69

    234

    4

    39

    Ballard v. McLean (1764)

    106

    320

    4

    42

    Banister v. Henderson (1765)

    119

    344

    4

    19

    Barnes v. Greenleaf (1763)

    41

    174

    5

    78

    Bishop v. Brig Freemason (1763) [Note: this is an incomplete fragment by Quincy, written when he was only nineteen. See annotations to Case 78.]

    387

    808

    4

    6

    Blower v. Campbell (1762)

    8

    102

    5

    52

    Box et al. v. Welch et al. (1766)

    227

    550

    4

    40

    Bromfield v. Little (1764)

    108

    324

    5

    54

    Bromfield v. Lovejoy (1767)

    237

    570

    4

    27

    Brown v. Culnan (1763)

    66

    228

    5

    55

    Carpenter v. Fairservice (1767)

    239

    574

    5

    60

    Curtis v. Nightingale (1767)

    256

    606

    4

    18

    Daniels v. Bullard (1763)

    41

    172

    4

    17

    Derumple v. Clark (1763)

    38

    164

    5

    74

    Dewing v. Train (1772)

    339

    742

    4

    34

    Dom. Rex v. Doaks (1763)

    90

    286

    4

    35

    Dom. Rex v. Gay (1763)

    91

    290

    4

    44

    Dom. Rex v. Mangent (1765)

    162

    406

    4

    38

    Dom. Rex v. Pourksdorff (1764)

    104

    314

    4

    45

    Draper v. Bicknell (1765)

    164

    412

    4

    9

    Dudley v. Dudley et al. (1762)

    12

    110

    5

    30[b]

    Dunn v. Scollay (1765) [See Scollay v. Dunn]

    187

    478

    4

    28

    Dunten v. Richards (1763)

    67

    230

    4

    20

    Elwell v. Pierson (1763)

    42

    178

    5

    68

    Flagg v. Hobart (1772)

    332

    720

    5

    71

    Fowle v. Wyman (1772)

    336

    730

    4

    24

    Gardiner v. Purrington (1763)

    59

    212

    5

    57

    Gibbs v. Gibbs (1767)

    251

    592

    4

    15

    Gould v. Stevens (1762)

    34

    152

    4

    26

    Gridley v. Balston et al. (1763)

    65

    224

    5

    58

    Hall v. Miller (1767)

    252

    596

    5

    66

    Hall v. Richardson

    329

    712

    4

    14

    Hallowell v. Dalton (1762)

    33

    150

    4

    37

    Hanlon v. Thayer (1764)

    99

    306

    5

    75

    Hooton v. Grout (1772)

    343

    750

    4

    3

    Ingraham v. Cook et al. (1762)

    4

    90

    4

    10

    Jackson v. Foye (1762)

    26

    128

    4

    7

    Jones v. Belcher (1762)

    9

    104

    5

    73

    Little v. Holdin (1772)

    338

    738

    4

    33

    Lovell v. Doble (1763)

    88

    280

    5

    56

    Malcolm v. Gleason (1767)

    251

    590

    4

    8

    Minot v. Prout (1762)

    9

    106

    4

    4

    Newman v. Homans (1762)

    5

    94

    5

    59

    Noble v. Smith (1767)

    254

    600

    5

    47

    Norwood v. Fairservice (1765)

    189

    482

    4

    13

    Oliver v. Sale (1762)

    29

    140

    5

    65

    Parker v. Willard

    326

    706

    5

    46

    Pateshall v. Apthorp & Wheelwright (1765)

    179

    466

    4

    22

    Paxton’s Case of the Writ of Assistance (1761)

    51

    194

    5

    48

    Pond v. Medway (1765)

    193

    490

    4

    32

    Poor v. Doble (1763)

    86

    276

    4

    1

    Poor v. Dougharty (1762)

    1

    78

    5

    51

    Pynchon, Executor v. Brewster (1766)

    224

    544

    5

    67

    Reed’s Case (1772)

    331

    716

    4

    43

    Rochester Proprietors v. Hammond (1765)

    159

    400

    4

    25

    Rogers v. Kenwrick (1763)

    62

    218

    4

    23

    Ruddock v. Gordon (1763)

    58

    208

    4

    21

    Russell v. Oakes (1763)

    48

    188

    4

    12

    Sayer et al. v. Thorp et al. (1762)

    28

    136

    4

    30

    Scollay v. Dunn (1763)

    74

    246

    5

    61

    Silvester Richmond, Esq., Appellant v. Benja: & Edward Davis, Appellees

    279

    634

    5

    63

    Symes & Wife, original Plaintiffs v. Hill, original Defendant

    318

    692

    5

    64

    The King v. John Johnson Grant

    326

    704

    5

    77

    The Petition of the Jurors in the Trial of Captain Preston and the British Soldiers (1771) [Note: this is based on a description published by Quincy in the Boston Gazette, May 20, 1771.]

    382

    798

    5

    72

    Thwing v. Dennie (1772)

    338

    734

    5

    70

    Tuttle v. Wilmington (1772)

    335

    728

    5

    50

    Tyler v. Richards, Administrator (1765)

    195

    496

    5

    49

    Watts v. Hasey (1765)

    194

    492

    5

    69

    Whitney v. Haven (1772)

    334

    726

    4

    41

    Whitney v. Whitney (1765)

    117

    340

    4

    11

    Wiswall v. Hall (1762)

    27

    132

    4

    16

    Wrentham Proprietors v. Metcalf (1763)

    36

    158

    4

    5

    Zuill v. Bradley (1762)

    6

    98

    4

    n/a

    Memorandum of 1762, Members of the Bar

    35

    156

    4

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (March Term, 1765) (“Charge Number 1”)

    110

    328

    5

    n/a

    Memorandum of August 27, 1765 (Destruction of Chief Justice’s House)

    168

    446

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (August Term, 1765) (“Charge Number 2”)

    175

    458

    5

    n/a

    Memorandum of Bar Harmony (1765)

    197

    502

    5

    n/a

    Memorial of the Town of Boston (1765)

    198

    506

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by Justice Lynde (March Term, 1766) (“Charge Number 3”)

    215

    530

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (August Term, 1766) (“Charge Number 4”)

    218

    534

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (March Term, 1767) (“Charge Number 5”)

    232

    562

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (August Term, 1767) (“Charge Number 6”)

    241

    578

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (March Term, 1768) (“Charge Number 7”)

    258

    610

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (August Term, 1768) (“Charge Number 8”)

    301

    666

    5

    n/a

    [Quincy notes that his absence from the court prevents his taking any minutes in the subsequent August Term, 1768]

    305

    673

    5

    n/a

    Charge to the Grand Jury by the Chief Justice (1769) (“Charge Number 9”)

    306

    674

    5

    n/a

    Memoranda (August Term, 1769). Quincy observes there is not a “Quorum of the Court, without the Chief Justice, he, though now the Commander in Chief of this Province, sat and acted, at the Opening of this Court, which very speedily adjourned to November”

    316

    688

    5

    n/a

    Memorandum (1771). Quincy notes resignations of Chief Justice Lynde and Justice John Cushing, and appointment of Peter Oliver as Chief Justice and Nathaniel Ropes and William Cushing as Justices, to take their seats in February Term, 1772.

    330

    714

    ILLUSTRATION 7: Josiah Quincy Jr.’s Law Reports, Massachusetts Historical Society, P347, Reel 4, QP57, p. 5. Title page of second section of Quincy’s Reports. See Cox chart, Appendix II, Law Commonplace, Quincy Papers, vol. 2, p. 429. The accompanying quotations read:

    It is necessary to observe the Judgments & Resolutions | Of the SAGES of the LAW. Co: Lit: 363.b. [“Coke on Littleton,” Edward Coke, First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England (London, 1628), p. 363b.]

    Judex Jus dicit, etiam cum inique dicit:-Durum, sane; sed ita Lex scripta est. Civil Law. [See “Quincy’s Latin Maxims,” Law Commonplace, Appendix I, p. 323, Quincy Papers, vol. 2.]

    The reason of the judgment is the strength of the Authority. | per Holt. 1 Ld Raym.d 630 [Lord Raymond’s Reports (London, 1743), vol. 1, p. 630.]

    The Latin reads, “A judge speaks the law, even when he speaks unjustly, though strictly and precisely; but thus has the law been written.” Many thanks to Elizabeth Papp Kamali, classicist beyond compare, and Charles Donahue Jr. All Quincy manuscripts courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society