Manuel v. Bates
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against Bates as surety and Edward Crane as principal, on a recognizance entered into by them in the usual form under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, before a master in chancery, upon the application of Crane to take the oath for the relief of poor debtors, in order to obtain release from arrest on an execution, issued in favor of the plaintiff upon a judgment recovered by him against Crane in the superior court, for $3450. The alleged breach of the recognizance was the…
Read the full summary
Contract against Bates as surety and Edward Crane as principal, on a recognizance entered into by them in the usual form under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, before a master in chancery, upon the application of Crane to take the oath for the relief of poor debtors, in order to obtain release from arrest on an execution, issued in favor of the plaintiff upon a judgment recovered by him against Crane in the superior court, for $3450. The alleged breach of the recognizance was the failure of Crane to surrender himself for examination. Writ dated February 5, 1869. By the copies, appended to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The certificate of the magistrate, that he is satisfied there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge made in the affidavit is true, is independent of the clause that follows it, and authorizes an arrest in the daytime. Such an arrest was made. Its construction is not varied by the clause that follows it, namely: “ and satisfactory cause having been shown, I hereby authorize the arrest of the said debtor, if his arrest is authorized by law, to be made after sunset.” The last clause is immaterial, there having been no arrest aftér sunset.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stewart v. GriswoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883