1 Mass. 145 | Mass. | 1804
The Court did not decide whether the sum was to be considered as a penalty or as liquidated damages, but seemed to think that it was a penalty. They appeared to have some doubts with regard to their power, by the statute, 1785, c. 22, to assess damages in an
Parsons and T. Bigelow for the plaintiff.
S. Dana for the defendants.
a) [There can be no doubt the sum was in this case fixed as a penalty merely, anti was not intended to be considered as liquidated damages. — Asley vs. Weldon, 2 B. & P. 346. — Smith vs. Dickinson, 3 B. & P. 630. — Davis vs. Penton, 6 B. & C. 216; 9 D. & R. 369. — Charrington vs. Laing, 3 M. & P. 587; 6 Bingh. 242. — Kemble vs. Farren, 6 Bingh. 141 ;3 M. & P. 245. — Homer vs. Graves, 5 M. & P. 768 ; 7 Bingh. 735. — Ed.]
) Vide Perkins vs. Lyman, vol. xi. p. 76.