Coolidge v. Cary
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The defendant’s bail, by J. T. Austin, his attorney, offered to' surrender him into the custody of the Court, to discharge himself of his suretiship. It was objected by Aylwin, for the plaintiffs, that this could not be done by attorney; but the Court overruled the objection, and the surrender was made.
Read the full summary
The defendant’s bail, by J. T. Austin, his attorney, offered to' surrender him into the custody of the Court, to discharge himself of his suretiship. It was objected by Aylwin, for the plaintiffs, that this could not be done by attorney; but the Court overruled the objection, and the surrender was made. The defendant having afterwards been defaulted, his counsel moved that judgment be entered as of that day of the term, with a view that the thirty days might commence, within which the plaintiffs must charge him in execution, or he be discharged from his imprisonment.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
After the default of the defendant, judgment goes, of course, unless there be good reason for postponing it, as where there is a prior attachment of property. There is no sufficient reason for delay in the present case.
Let judgment he entered.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Champion v. NoyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Dalton-Ingersoll Co. v. FiskeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Bailey v. EdmundsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Wright v. BurbeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
- New-Hampshire Strafford Bank v. CornellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1821
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.