Court Opinion

ID: 9298262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-01 19:25:04.694736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:32.472506
License: Public Domain

AUTHORITIES in Favour of the Plaintiff were, Molloy (old Edit.) 205, § 10, 212, § 14, 213, § 14; Molloy (new Edit. 1744) 358, *188237-8, 244-5; 2 Raymond, 931; Ld. Holt’s Opinion relied on; Sea Laws, 128.
1765.
In Favour of the Defendant were, 2 Chancery Cases, 239; 1 Salk. 35; 3 Bacon, 592, 595. (2)

(2) This list of authorities was at first supposed to refer to the former case, and was accordingly printed in a note to page 83.