Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Hatch

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 15, 1809PublishedCited by 7 opinions

This was an action of debt upon a bond, originally executed by Stephen Bruce, Isaiah Doane and the»present defendant, the two former being dead before the commencement of this action.

1Opinion of the Court

Upon this, the Court observed that the defendant’s motion to discharge the rule must prevail; for, if proceedings on this bond were analogous to the cases mentioned, Nichols and the obligor could not refer the action, before it was determined at law that the penalty was forfeited; because judgment for the penalty must be entered for the commonwealth for the benefit of any other persons who might be injured; but afterwards, Nichols * and [ * 193 ] the obligors might refer the damages he had sustained (1).

*146In this case the penalty had not been declared forfeit; and such was the report, that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Paine v. BallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
  2. Thomas v. LeachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Howard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Johnson v. Erskine ex rel. HangerTexas Supreme Court · 1852
  3. Moody v. MegeeDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1929
  4. Graton v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  5. Price v. PriceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1936

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API