Central National Bank v. O'Connor
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a recognizance entered into, under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, on January 5, 1876, by the first named defendant as principal, and the other defendants as sureties, and conditioned that O’Connor, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, should, within thirty days from the time of his arrest, deliver himself up for examination before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided by law,…
Read the full summary
Contract on a recognizance entered into, under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, on January 5, 1876, by the first named defendant as principal, and the other defendants as sureties, and conditioned that O’Connor, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, should, within thirty days from the time of his arrest, deliver himself up for examination before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided by law, and appear at the time fixed for his examination, and from time to time until the same was concluded, and not depart…
1Opinion of the CourtSoule, J.
The plaintiff contends that the judgment' of the Superior Court in favor of the defendants was wrong, on the ground that the principal in the recognizance sued on failed to obtain a valid discharge, on his application to take the poor debtor’s oath, because no proper service of notice thereof was made.
The only service was by leaving a true and attested copy at" the last and usual place of abode of the officer who made the *54arrest, less than fourteen hours before the time appointed for the examination. The St. of 1861, c. 112, provides that “ whenever the notice, permitted by the thirteenth…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Homer v. SinnottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Way v. WheelerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873