Platt v. Osborn

The case of Blanchard v. Bramble, (3 M. & S. 131,) is in point, arid contairls the true distinction. In construing this and thelike statutes, allowing double cost's, -there is a distinction in reason, as well as authority, between acts of misfeasance, and those merely of nonfeasance. The latter is often a mere omission to fulfil a contract; which does riot' call for the protection of the statute;