Provisions as to the verification, authentication,1 and publication of the delinquent list,2 together with those having reference to the return and filing,3 are mandatory, and must be strictly complied with. A return in the statutory form has been held good, Camp, 16 Ill. 175; Morrill v. Swartz, 39 Ill. 108; Simms v. Greer, 83 Ala. 263; Stambaugh v. Carlin, 35 Ohio St. 209. And see Weston v. People, 84 Ill. 284; Morrill v. Swartz, 39 Ill. 108; In re Tranior, 27 La. Ann. 150; Cummings v. Easton, 46 Iowa 183. A mere omission of a word, where the error is manifest, may be disregarded. Scherber v. Koehler, 49 Wis. 291. And see Spellman v. Curtenius, 12 Ill. 414. Where a report contains matters not required by statute, they may be disregarded, if it is otherwise sufficient. Ogden v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 592. And see Bristol v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 587. In St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. Greely, 11 Minn. 322, it was held that a list returned by the clerk, which purports to be a list of all taxes "delinquent or unpaid," when the statute provides for a list of all taxes "unpaid and delinquent," is insufficient to authorize a sale thereunder. 1. See Law v. People, 8o Ill. 268; Weston v. People, 84 Ill. 284; Hough v. Hastings, 18 Ill. 312; Hochlander v. Hochlander, 73 Ill. 618; Tabor v. People, 84 Ill. 202; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People, 83 Ill. 467; Hogelskamp v. Weeks, 37 Mich. 422; Upton v. Kennedy, 36 Mich. 215; State v. Viator, 37 La. Ann. 734; Thompson v. Burhaus, 61 N. Y. 52; Cotzhansen v. Kaehler, 42 Wis. 332; Miner v. McLean, 4 McLean (U. S.) 138; Hannel v. Smith, 15 Ohio 134; Stambaugh v. Carlin, 35 Ohio St. 209; Harmon v. Stockwell, 9 Ohio 94; Skinner v. Brown, 17 Ohio St. 33. It would appear that a verification of a return is unnecessary, unless required by statute. See Hollister v. Bennett, 9 Ohio 83; Ward v. Barrows, 2 Ohio St. 241; Kane v. Brooklyn, 114 N. Y. 586. In Bennett v. Blatz, 44 Minn. 56, it was held that defects in the verification of a delinquent list does not affect the jurisdiction of the court over a proceeding for the recovery of a tax. See also Mille Lacs County v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 178. 2. Iverslie v. Spaulding, 32 Wis. 394; Fox v. Turtle, 55 Ill. 377; Pennell v. Monroe, 30 Ark. 661; Hill v. Mason, 38 Me. 461; Merriman v. Knight, 43 Minn. 25 C. of L.-22 493. And see Banning v. McManus, 51 Minn. 289; Pitts v. Booth, 15 Tex. 453. In Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173, it was held that the affidavit of the auditor is no part of the delinquent list, and need not be published with it. In Buck v. People, 78 Ill. 560, it was held that an affidavit of a printer of a newspaper, of the publication of the delinquent list, and notice of applying for judgment properly sworn to, which states the day on which the publication was made and the paper in which the list and notice were published, is sufficient proof of publication, to confer jurisdiction on the court to render judgment. The publisher of a delinquent tax list is not entitled to be paid his advertising charge before he delivers to the county treasurer the copies and proof of publication prescribed by law; and if he refuses to make the delivery until he is paid, the refusal is a good defense to his demand. Brown v. Otoe County, 6 Neb. 111. 3. See Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505; Leindecker v. People, 98 Ill. 21; Dukes v. Rowley, 24 Ill. 210; Babcock v. Bonebrake, 77 Iowa 710; Ring v. Ewing, 47 Ind. 246; Merriman v. Knight, 93 Minn. 493; Hill v. Mason, 38 Me. 461; Martin v. Barbour, 34 Fed. Rep. 701; Belden v. State, 46 Tex. 103; Simpson v. Edmiston, 23 W. Va. 675. The filing must precede the publication of notice. Ring v. Ewing, 47 Ind. 246; Homer v. Cilley, 14 N. H. 85. But it must not be filed until the expiration of the time allowed to pay taxes. Hickman v. Kempner, 35 Ark. 505; Flint v. Sawyer, 30 Me. 226. In Adams v. Moulton, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 286, it was held that a statute requiring a collector to return to the selectmen, within a certain time, a list of persons from whom he has received payment of state or county taxes, requires that the list shall remain with the selectmen for their use, and not be taken away again by the collector. 337 In Louisiana, the failure to annex to a delinquent tax roll the affidavit required by law, does not vitiate the reg istry resulting from the recording of the roll. Edwards' Succession, 32 La. Ann. 457. notwithstanding the omission of statements which, in the absence of the statute, would be held requisite.1 The return should be made and authenticated by the collector, unless some other officer is designated.2 The authentication consists generally of an affidavit or certificate to the correctness of the list. The return is usually made to the person whose duty it is to enforce the tax. A return may be amended where the rights of third parties have not intervened.5 6 c. THE RETURN AS EVIDENCE.-A proper and complete return affords prima facie proof of the validity of the tax, that the preliminary requirements of the law have been complied with, 1. Dickisen v. Reynolds, 48 Mich. 158; Riddle v. Messer, 84 Ala. 236; Kinsworthy v. Mitchell, 21 Ark. 145; Bristol v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 587; Taylor v. People, 7 Ill. 349; Job v. Tebbetts, 10 Ill. 376; Morrill v. Swartz, 39 Ill. 108. And see Ward v. Barrows, 2 Ohio St. 241; Chouteau v. Hunt, 44 Minn. 173; Kane v. Brooklyn, 1 N. Y. Supp. 306; 48 Hun (N. Y.) 618; Alvord v. Collin, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 418. But see Mayhew v. Davis, 4 McLean (U. S.) 213. In Taylor v. People, 7 Ill. 349, it was held that a collector is not required to state in his return that he is unable to collect taxes by seizure and sale of the personal property of the taxpayer, as this is to be taken for granted from a report in a proper form, the collector being presumed to have done his duty. Under the Tennessee statutes regulating the sale of land for taxes, the record need not show the preliminary proceeding necessary to a valid tax; as, for example, that all the property in the county was assessed, and that the assessors were duly elected and qualified, etc. Nance v. Hopkins, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 508. 2. Law v. People, So Ill. 268. And see Weston v. People, 84 Ill. 284; Hannel v. Smith, 15 Ohio 134. Under the Texas statutes, the comptroller is required to make out a list and forward it to the sheriffs of the counties. Burns v. Ledbetter, 54 Tex. 374. In Ohio, the list must be signed by the collector, or by his chief clerk. Hannel v. Smith, 15 Ohio 134. 3. See Stambaugh v. Carlin, 35 Ohio St. 209; Weston v. People, 84 Ill. 284. 4. See Tallman v. White, 2 N. Y. 66; Hills v. Chicago, 60 Ill. 86; Babcock v. Bonebrake, 77 Iowa 710. A statute imposing a specific tax, and requiring payment to the comptroller general, in effect designates that officer as the proper one to receive the return as well as the money. Smith v. Goldsmith, 63 Ga. 736. 5. Jaquith v. Putney, 48 N. H. 138; Shelbyville Water Co. v. People, 140 Ill. 545; Carville v. Additon, 62 Me. 459. And see State v. Phillips, 102 Mo. 664. But see Henrico County v. McGruder, 84 Va. 828. 6. Olmstead County v. Barber, 31 Minn. 256; Mahaney v. People, 138 III. 311; Pike v. People, 84 Ill. 80; Fisher v. People, 84 Ill. 491; Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570. And see Muskegon v. Martin Lumber Co., 86 Mich. 625; Mast v. Nacogdoches County, 71 Tex. 380. If the return is insufficient or improperly made or executed, it is not admissible in evidence. See Putman v. Fife Lake Tp., 45 Mich. 125; Kelly v. Craig, 5 Ired. (N. Car.) 129; Stambaugh v. Carlin, 35 Ohio St. 209. In State v. Miller, 16 Mo. App. 539, it was held that a tax bill is admissible in evidence, even though signed by the deputy collector. 7. Burbank v. People, 90 Ill. 554; Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570; Mix v. People, SI Ill. 118; Pike v. People, S4 Ill. So; Caldwell v. Hawkins, 40 Me. 527; Barnard v. Graves, 13 Met. (Mass.) 85; State v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 530; Boardman v. Goldsmith, 48 Vt. 403; Smith v. Mosher, 9 N. Y. Supp. 786; 56 Hun (N. Y.) 643. In Ottawa v. Macy, 20 Ill. 413, it was held that a collector's return stating that taxes are unpaid, and that he can find no chattels whereon to levy, is conclusive of the fact stated. If it is false, he is answerable personally. See also Goodrich v. Minonk, 62 Ill. 121. A demand for payment by the collector may be shown by his return. Barnard v. Graves, 13 Met. (Mass.) 85; and that the tax is delinquent. taxpayer as well as for the public.2 The return is evidence for the Where a list is required by statute to be kept, parol evidence is inadmissible to supply omissions.3 The return is not evidence of anything beyond what the law requires to be stated.4 Parol evidence, however, is admissible in behalf of the taxpayer to controvert the list,5 and, in such case, it is also admissible on behalf of the collector in rebuttal. And, in an action against the collector, his proceedings may be proved by parol, when necessary to his justification.7 5. Liability of the Collector and Sureties-a. FOR OFFICIAL ACTION. It may be stated as a general rule that a collector of taxes who is legally qualified, who is acting within the scope of his powers, and who acts under a warrant regularly issued by competent authority, is protected against all irregularities but his own,8 Job v. Tebbetts, 10 Ill. 382; Taylor v. 1. See Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570; New York v. Goldman, 125 N. Y. 395. 2. See Bruce v. Holden, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 187; Barnard v. Graves, 13 Met. (Mass.) 85; Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 570; State v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 530. The admissibility of a tax duplicate in evidence, in an action for the recovery of a tax, is not affected by the fact that the taxpayer is a non-resident. Wade v. Kimberly, 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 33. 3. Martin v. Barbour, 34 Fed. Rep. 701; Hosmer v. People, 96 Ill. 58; Boardman v. Goldsmith, 48 Vt. 403; Iverslie v. Spaulding, 32 Wis. 394. And see State v. Northern Belle Min. Co., 15 Nev. 387. A warrant of arrest against a taxpayer, is not a returnable process, and the proceedings may be shown by other evidence. Kelley v. Noyes, 43 N. H. 209. 4. Bristol v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 587; Sullivan v. State, 66 Ill. 75; Com. v. Hart, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 77. And see Ogden v. Chicago, 22 Ill. 592. Nor is it evidence of anything not actually stated. See State v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 530. A return by a collector, of unpaid taxes on lands of non-residents, is not evidence of the contents of the assessment roll. Wood v. Knapp, 100 N. Y. 109. 5. Boardman v. Goldsmith, 48 Vt. 403. And see Andrews v. Rumsey, 75 İll. 598. In Justices v. Fennimore, 1 N. J. L. 190, it was held that even though the collector is required by statute to enter in a book kept for that purpose, all cer tificates received by him, and give receipts for the same, other persons may prove his receipt of such certificate, by parol evidence. Where the statute requires the collector to make his return from the best information that he can obtain, in case of a loss of the records, he is made the sole judge of the sources and sufficiency of the information, and his report cannot be impeached by showing that he could have obtained better information, or that he did not know it to be true, but proof that it was not true would be proper. Andrews v. People, 75 Ill. 605. 6. Boardman v. Goldsmith, 48 Vt. 403. Irregularities in the delinquent tax list may be corrected by the introduction in evidence of the original assessment roll which gives the true assessment of the property. State v. Sadler, 21 Nev. 13. 7. Spear v. Tilson, 24 Vt. 420; Hathaway v. Goodrich, 5 Vt. 65. And see Muskegon v. Martin Lumber Co., 86 Mich. 625. In Hathaway v. Goodrich, 5 Vt. 65, it was held that the collector's certificates showing seizure and sale, are not proper evidence in his favor. 8. Nowell v. Tripp, 61 Me. 426; Carville v. Additon, 62 Me. 459; Judkins v. Reed, 48 Me. 386; Caldwell v. Hawkins, 40 Me. 526; Ford v. Clough, 8 Me. 342; 23 Am. Dec. 513; Seekins v. Goodall, 61 Me. 400; 14 Am. Rep. 568; Bethel v. Mason, 55 Me. 501; Lott v. Hubbard, 44 Ala. 593; Sanders v. Simmons, 30 Ark. 274; Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Noland v. Busby, 28 Ind. 154; Shaw v. Dennis, 10 III. 405; Chiniquy v. People, 78 Ill. 571; Hill v. Fagley, 25 Ill. 156; Sils even though the tax is void, or though the property is exempt bee. Stockle, 44 Mich. 562; Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 28; Le Roy v. East Saginaw City R. Co., 18 Mich. 233; 100 Am. Dec. 162; Mathews v. Densmore, 43 Mich. 461; Moss v. Cummings, 44 Mich. 359; Byles v. Genung, 52 Mich. 504; Wall v. Trumbull, 16 Mich. 228; Neth v. Crofut, 30 Conn. 580; Watson v. Watson, 9 Conn. 140; 23 Am. Dec. 324; Peckham v. Bicknell, 11 R. I. 596; Brainard v. Head, 15 La. Ann. 489; Cunningham v. Mitchell, 67 Pa. St. 78; Billings v. Russell, 23 Pa. St. 189; 62 Am. Dec. 330; Gove v. Newton, 58 N. H. 359; Loomis . Spencer, 1 Ohio St. 153; State v. Lutz, 65 N. Car. 503; Colman v. Anderson, 10 Mass. 105; Underwood v. Robinson, 106 Mass. 296; Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 272; 7 Am. Dec. 145; Noyes v. Haverhill, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 338; Sprague v. Bailey, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 436; Upton v. Holden, 5 Met. (Mass.) 360; Aldrich v. Aldrich, 8 Met. (Mass.) 102; Holden v. Eaton, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 436; Hays v. Drake, 6 Gray (Mass.) 389; Rawson 7. Spencer, 113 Mass. So; Howard v. Proctor, 7 Gray (Mass.) 128; Hubbard v. Garfield, 102 Mass. 72; Cone v. Forest, 126 Mass. 97; Kinsley v. Hall, 9 N. H. 190; Sheldon v. Van Buskirk, 2 N. Y. 473; Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 171; 21 Am. Dec. 181; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Roach, 80 N. Y. 339; Parker v. Walrod, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 514; 30 Am. Dec. 124; Abbott v. Yost, 2 Den. (N. Y.) 86; Patchin v. Ritter, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 34; Doolittle v. Doolittle, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 312; Johnson v. Lane, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 616; Alexander v. Hoyt, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 89; Reynolds v. Moore, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 35; 24 Am. Dec. 116; North Missouri R. Co. v. Maguire, 49 Mo. 483; Turner v. Franklin, 29 Mo. 285; Walden v. Dudley, 49 Mo. 419; St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Charles, 47 Mo. 462; State v. Dulle, 48 Mo. 282; St. Louis Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Lightner, 47 Mo. 393; Glasgow v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 480; Brown v. Harris, 52 Mo. 306; McLean v. Cook, 23 Wis. 364; Sprague v. Birchard, Wis. 457; 60 Am. Dec. 393; Erskine v. Hohnbach, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 613; First Nat. Bank v. Waters, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 242; Baley v. Worts man, 2 N. Y. St. Rep. 246; 41 Hun (N. Y.) 637; Bradley v. Ward, 58 N. Y.401; Chegaray v. Jenkins, 5 N. Y. 376. The question whether a tax is laid in the proper town or ward, cannot be raised in an action against the officer executing it, in order to affect the validity of process, regular on its face. Patchin z. Ritter, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 34. Collector's Assistants.-The tax warrant which protects the collector, will likewise protect those who aid him in making the collection. Doolittle v. Doolittle, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 312. Vermont.-But in Vermont, it has been held that in order to rely upon a valid warrant, the collector must show that all previous proceedings were valid. Collamer v. Drury, 16 Vt. 574; Shaw v. Pickett, 25 Vt. 423; Spear v. Tillson, 24 Vt. 420; Downing v. Roberts, 21 Vt. 441; Hathaway v. Goodrich, 5 Vt. 65; Parkhurst v. Sumner, 23 Vt. 538; 56 Am. Dec. 91; Downer v. Woodbury, 19 Vt. 329; Wheelock v. Archer, 26 Vt. 380. A collector, in attempting to collect a tax which exceeds the amount limited by constitutional provision, has been held a trespasser, and no valid tax sale can be made for such a tax. Graham v. Parham, 32 Ark. 676. 1. Lincoln v. Worcester, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 55; Sanders v. Simmons, 30 Ark. 274; Abbott v. Yost, 2 Den. (N. Y.) 86; Chegaray v. Jenkins, 5 N. Y. 376; Baley v. Wortsman, 2 N. Y. St. Rep. 246; 41 Hun (N. Y.) 637; Prince v. Thomas, 11 Conn. 472; Thames Mfg. Co. v. Lathrop, 7 Conn. 550; Rubey v. Shain, 54 Mo. 207; Ranney v. Bader, 67 Mo. 476; Gove v. Mastin, 66 N. Car. 371; State v. Lutz, 65 N. Car. 503. But see Huse v. Merriam, 2 Me. 376; Baldwin v. McClinch, 1 Me. 102; Graham v. Parham, 32 Ark. 676; Greenwell v. Com., 78 Ky. 320. The remedy of the taxpayer is to proceed to arrest the collection of the tax, Ranney v. Bader, 67 Mo. 476; Rubey v. Shain, 54 Mo. 207; Beach v. Furman, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 229; or to proceed against the persons who illegally assess the tax or issue the warrant. Loomis v. Spencer, 1 Ohio St. 154; Thames Mfg. Co. v. Lathrop, 7 Conn. 550; Moore v. Allegheny City, 18 Pa. St. 58; Weimer v. Bunbury, 30 Mich. 201; Baley v. Wortsman, 2 N. Y. St. Rep. 246; 41 Hun (N. Y.) 637; Alexander v. Hoyt, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 89; Beach v. Furman, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 229; Kelly v. from taxation. But where the collector intermeddles with the taxpayer's property without a warrant, he is liable as a trespasser.2 To justify the collector, the warrant must have been issued by the duly authorized officer or body,3 having jurisdiction of the matter. The warrant must conform to the statute and be regular upon its face. Noyes, 43 N. H. 209; Henry v. Sargeant, 13 N. H. 321; 40 Am. Dec. 146. In Bergen v. Clarkson, 6 N. J. L. 352, it was held that proceedings under the authority of a void by-law imposing a tax, are themselves void, and furnish no justification of the acts of the person who undertook to execute it. It is not competent to show that the forms prescribed by statute for the organization of a school district, have not been complied with, in an action against a collector for taking property in obedience to the warrant for the collection of a school tax. Reynolds v. Moore, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 35; 24 Am. Dec. 116. 1. Erskine v. Hohnbach, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 613; Kelley v. Noyes, 43 N. H. 209; Blanchard v. Goss, 2 N. H. 491; Beach . Furman, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 229; Moore v. Allegheny City, 18 Pa. St. 55. 2. Hilbish v. Hower, 58 Pa. St. 93; Stephens v. Wilkins, 6 Pa. St. 260; Lawrence v. Zimpleman, 37 Ark. 643; Gossett v. Kent, 19 Ark. 602; Butler v. Nevin, 88 Ill. 575; Donald v. McKinnon, 17 Fla. 746; Homer v. Cilley, 14 N. H. 85; Kelly v. Craig, 5 Ired. (N. Car.) 129; Lamb v. Farrell, 21 Fed. Rep. 5; Miner v. McLean, 4 McLean (U. S.) 138. And see Hannel v. Smith, 15 Ohio 134. 3. Hilbish v. Hower, 58 Pa. St. 93; Chalker v. Ives, 55 Pa. St. 81; Garber v. Conner, 98 Pa. St. 551; Prince v. Thomas, 11 Conn. 472; Tremont School Dist. v. Clark, 33 Me. 482; Bennett v. Burch, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 141; Butler v. Nevin, 88 Ill. 575; Brown v. Harris, 52 Mo. 306. 4. See St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Charles, 47 Mo. 466; Ranney v. Bader, 67 Mo. 476; State v. Shacklett, 37 Mo. 280; Glasgow v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 489; State v. Dowling, 50 Mo. 134; St. Louis Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Lightner, 47 Mo. 393; Walden v. Dudley, 49 Mo. 419; Rubey v. Shain, 54 Mo. 207; Jefferson City v. Opel, 49 Mo. 191; Rawson v. Spencer, 113 Mass. 80; Hubbard Garfield, 102 Mass. 72; Suydam v. Wyckoff, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 444; Dubois v. Webster, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 371; Clifton v. v. Wynne, 80 N. Car. 145; Cunningham v. Mitchell, 67 Pa. St. 78. But where the property is taxable in some form, and the assessor has jurisdiction over it, it is sufficient. North Missouri R. Co. v. Maguire, 49 Mo. 482; Ranney v. Bader, 67 Mo. 497; Moore v. Allegheny City, 18 Pa. St. 58. In Hallock v. Rumsey, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 89, it was held that where property is improperly assessed to one not the owner, a warrant issued on such assessment is void, and furnishes no justification to the collector. See also Billinger v. Gray, 51 N. Y. 610. 5. Hilbish v. Hower, 58 Pa. St. 93; Warrensburg v. Miller, 77 Mo. 56; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Apperson, 97 Mo. 300; Bennett v. Burch, i Den. (Ñ. Y.) 141. And see Dubois v. Webster, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 371. Mere formal irregularities not affecting the validity of the warrant, will not affect its power to protect the collector. See King v. Whitcomb, 1 Met. (Mass.) 328; Hubbard v. Garfield, 102 Mass. 72. And defects in the proceedings are unimportant, when jurisdiction has attached. Barrett v. Crane, 16 Vt. 246. Where an affidavit which is made a part of the assessment roll and delivered to the collector with the warrant, discloses the want of jurisdiction of the board of supervisors to issue the warrant, the latter furnishes no protection to the collector. Westfall v. Preston, 49 N. Y. 349; Van Rensselaer v. Witbeck, 7 N. Y. 517. And see Smith v. Mosher, 9 N. Y. Supp. 786; 56 Hun (N. Y.) 643; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Lyon, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 651. But where he has several warrants, he is not a trespasser because part of them are illegal upon their faces. Woolsey v. Morris, 96 N. Y. 311; Hays v. Drake, 6 Gray (Mass.) 387; Bird v. Perkins, 33 Mich. 28. 6. Underwood v. Robinson, 106 Mass. 298; Rawson v. Spencer, 113 Mass. 40; Hubbard v. Garfield, 102 Mass. 72; Sherman v. Torrey, 99 Mass. 472; Savacool v. Boughton, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 170; 21 Am. Dec. 181. In Hays v. Drake, 6 Gray (Mass.) |