Tracy v. Strong
Supreme Court of Connecticut
in error. THIS was am action of debt, on a bond, executed by James Backus, on the 29th of December 1803, for 3000 dollars, payable to Margaret Backus ; to which bond there was the following condition, viz.
Read the full summary
in error. THIS was am action of debt, on a bond, executed by James Backus, on the 29th of December 1803, for 3000 dollars, payable to Margaret Backus ; to which bond there was the following condition, viz. “ That whereas the. said James Backus has agreed, in consideration of the said Margaret’s quit-claiming to him all her right to the estate of the late Elijah Backus, Esq., to pay to her, annually, on the first day of May, during her natural life, the sum of 185 dollars, and to procure for her, at any time, within'twenty days after demand shall be made by her, for that purpose, such other…
1Opinion of the Court
SwWt, Ch, J.
Originally, courts of law, on penal bonds, could render judgment only for the penalty ; for that was considered to be absolutely forfeited, by non-payment at the day. But equity always relieved on payment of the sum actually due : and now, by statute, courts of law are vested with the same power, and may determine any matter of apparent equity, as upon the forfeiture of a bond, or obligation, or breach of covenant without damage, or the like. Of course, a penal bond is on the same footing as a single, bill or note j the court can, in the same manner, render judgment for the sum…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Brownstein v. New York Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1930
- Dexter v. PhillipsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Farnam v. FarnamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- Strakosch v. Connecticut Trust & Safe Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Rudulph v. WagnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.