Sampson v. Barnard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against one of the sureties on a bond given to dissolve an attachment. At the trial in the superior court, before Ames, J., “ the defendant, who signed the bond as one of the sureties, offered his own testimony that, when requested to sign the bond by the principal therein, he agreed to do so, if he would be accepted; that he went before a magistrate appointed for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of such sureties; that, upon answering the questions put by…
Read the full summary
Contract against one of the sureties on a bond given to dissolve an attachment. At the trial in the superior court, before Ames, J., “ the defendant, who signed the bond as one of the sureties, offered his own testimony that, when requested to sign the bond by the principal therein, he agreed to do so, if he would be accepted; that he went before a magistrate appointed for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of such sureties; that, upon answering the questions put by the magistrate touching his estate, he said he had no real estate, and the magistrate told him that he would not be…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The defendant’s own statement as to the circumstances under which the bond was executed and delivered shows that it was signed by him and accepted by the magistrate. The fact that the magistrate would not approve it as sufficient until strengthened by the addition of a third surety did not exonerate either of those who signed it originally.
No stamp is required upon such a bond under the laws of the United States. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Paxton v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Ward v. HackettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Fry v. P. Bannon Sewer Pipe Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Waverley Lumber Co. v. PiantedosiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Daley v. CarneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875