Happenny v. Trayner
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, against John Trayner, William S. Stearns, and John H. Butler, on a bond entered into by James Trayner and John Trayner, as principals, and by Stearns and Butler, as sureties.
Read the full summary
Contract, against John Trayner, William S. Stearns, and John H. Butler, on a bond entered into by James Trayner and John Trayner, as principals, and by Stearns and Butler, as sureties. The condition of the bond was, that whereas the plaintiff, in a suit before a justice of the peace, had recovered judgment against James and John Trayner, and they had filed a petition to the Superior Court for a review of the judgment: “ Now if the said James Trayner and John Trayner shall prosecute their petition for said review to a final decision, and the review, if granted, to final judgment, and pay such…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
The case does not differ in principle from Leonard v. Speidel, 104 Mass. 356. The defendants were not prejudiced in any manner by the discontinuance against James Trayner. No new or different cause of action was introduced. The grounds of recovery were not enlarged or changed. The sureties were not affected in their right or means of indemnity. That depends on their relations to their principals, as shown by the bond, and is not secured through the judgment.
Whatever difficulty there is in the way of recovery here arises from the language of the condition of the bond. It is contended that “…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Leonard v. SpeidelMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sanderson v. StevensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874