Appeals to the Privy Council

Report No. 05_1717_00

Oulton v Savage


Case Name Short

Oulton v Savage

Case Name Long

John Oulton and Cornelius Waldo v Arthur Savage


Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial Series


APC Citation 

v.2 [1270] p.721 – 15 July 1717 – entry 1

PC Register Citation 

George I v.2 (2 March 1717 – 25 August 1720) p.19: PC 2/86/19


APC Citation 

v.2 [1270] p.721 – 5 February 1718 – entry 2

PC Register Citation 

George I v.2 (2 March 1717 – 25 August 1720) p.93–94: PC 2/86/93–94


APC Citation 

v.2 [1270] p.721 – 16 March 1718 – entry 3

PC Register Citation 

George I v.2 (2 March 1717 – 25 August 1720) p.116: PC 2/86/116


Colonial Courts

Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts Bay – 6 November 1716


Oulton, John of Boston

Savage, Arthur, master of the Province

Waldo, Cornelius of Boston


Province (galley)


Action on the case, according to Smith (p.166).


Dismissed – petitioners may still apply for a review in New England

References in Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Plantations

Table of Cases (Oulton v Waldo and Savage)


Printed Cases

Not found

Privy Council Documents in PC 1 at The National Archives at Kew

Not found



Smith names the case Oulton v Waldo and Savage, but the original record he cites (Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature Judgment [recte Record] Book, 1715–1717, f.158[r–v]) clearly names the case as “John Oulton & Cornelius Waldo both of Boston in the County of Suffolk Merchants three quarter part Owners of the Ship Province Galley, Appellants [v] Captain Arthur Savage now or late Comander of the said Ship Province Galley of Boston aforesaid Mariner, Appellee.” The action, originally brought in an Inferior Court in July of 1716, charged Savage with having violated Oulton and Waldo’s orders with regard to a shipment of fish from Massachusetts to Portugal or Spain, with the result that they were damaged to the sum of £1,052 9s. The original jury found for Oulton and Waldo in the amount of £360. Oulton and Savage appealed to the Superior Court, and a second jury found entirely for Savage, who was awarded costs of £4 8s. 2d. A note in the margin states that on 3 December 1716, Savage acknowledged that this judgment (presumably for costs) was satisfied. Oulton and Waldo prayed leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and the record states: “The Court are of Opinion that an Appeal doth not ly in this Action.” Why they were of this opinion is perhaps indicated by the Privy Council’s dismissal of the appeal: Further review in the colony was available by way of writ of review. Compare the procedure followed half a century later in Apthorpe v Pateshall (05_1768_00, APC, v.5 [56] p.122).

Charles Donahue, Jr.