Ellis v. Marshall
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
2 Mass. 269 (1807)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
In 1804, the Massachusetts legislature established a new corporation. The corporation’s work was building a street, and Marshall (defendant) was named as a member of the corporation. The corporation was to have the authority to charge members for the cost of building the road in question and had the power to sell the property of any members who failed to pay their respective shares. As regarded Marshall, assigning Marshall to the group was an issue simply because he did not consent to be a member of the corporation. Marshall also did not pay the assessments levied against him; thus, the corporation eventually sold Marshall’s property to Ellis (plaintiff). Ellis filed an ejectment action to obtain the actual possession of the property involved. Ellis argued that the legislature had the power to make Marshall a member of the corporation and that Marshall actually consented to be a member, essentially through Marshall’s nonaction. In contrast, Marshall argued that he never signed the petition to establish the corporation, that Marshall did not attend meetings of the corporation, and that the only real interaction Marshall had with the corporation was protesting against the corporation claiming authority over Marshall and his property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.