Campbell v. Rankins
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was a qui tam action of debt, brought to recover the penalty given in the statute of 1821, ch. 22, sec. 2. The material parts of the declaration were as follows.
Read the full summary
This was a qui tam action of debt, brought to recover the penalty given in the statute of 1821, ch. 22, sec. 2. The material parts of the declaration were as follows. “For that the said Ranicim, at said Frankfort, on the first day of November, 1832, being the commander of a certain outward bound vessel, called the William, did take on board said vessel, and carry and transport out of this State, one William Crockett, of said Frankfort, a minor under the age of twenty-one years, to parts beyond sea, to wit, to Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, without the consent of Ms parents, master, or…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mellen C. J.
This action is founded on the second section of the statute of 1821, ch. 22, which is in these words: That every master or commander of any outward hound ship or vessel, that shall hereafter carry or transport out of this State, any person under the age of twenty-one years, or any apprentice or any indented servant to any parts beyond sea, without the consent of his parents, master or guardian, shall forfeit and pay the sum of two hundred dollars.” The first section makes it penal “ to carry any subject of this State, or other person…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Murray's Lessee v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
- Faw v. Roberdeau'sSupreme Court of the United States · 1805
3Cited by4 opinions
- Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids & Indiana RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Lipman v. ThomasSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1948
- San Luis Land, Canal & Improvement Co. v. Kenilworth Canal Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1893
- San Luis Land, Canal & Improvement Co. v. Kenilworth Canal Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1893