Case ID: super-ct-jud_1/html/0237-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bromfield vers. Lovejoy.
    PLEA in Abatement by Mr. Auchmuty, that the Defendant bore a Captain’s Commission, and so a Gentleman by Office, and therefore, Yeoman, was not his due Addition. Cited 2 Inst. 666, 668; 1 Inst. 66 a.
    
      1767.
    
    A Captain of Militia, commissioned by the Governour, is a Gentleman by Office, and if sued by the Addition of Yeoman may abate the Writ.
    
      Mr. Otis.
    
    Lovejoy is certainly no Gentleman by Office; for no Commission from any Governour whatever, can make a Man Gentleman by Office. Lovejoy is then a Gentleman, if any Way, by Curtesy, or Reputation, and, Gentleman, would be a good Addition, “ but if he be named Yeoman, he cannot abate the Writ.” Viner, Tit. Additions, C. pi. 29, p. 85... “Yeoman or Gentleman are Additions ad Placitum, and ad Libitum, are no Part of the Name, but Additions ad Libitum, as People please to call them.” Viner, Ibid. pi. 33, 34.
   The Court

took a Distinction between Gentleman by Curtesy, and Reputation, and feemed to be of Opinion, that, if a Man was Gentleman by Curtesy, Yeoman was not his sue Addition; aliter if Gentleman by Reputation only. In the present Case they were of Opinion, that Lovejoy was a Gentleman, both by his Commission and by Curtefy. Therefore they ruled, that the Writ abate, though they said it was a very great Hardship upon the Bar. 
      
       Vid. 3 Bac. Abr. 618, where Brook, 44, is cited. Vid. 2 Ld. Raym’d, 849.