Carleton v. Wakefield
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
CosteACT on a recognizance entered into, under the Gen. Sts. e. 124, § 10, by Oliver H. Flanders, as principal, and the defendant, as surety, conditioned that Flanders, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, would, within thirty days, “deliver himself up for examination, before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided by law, and appear at the time and place fixed for his examination, and…
Read the full summary
CosteACT on a recognizance entered into, under the Gen. Sts. e. 124, § 10, by Oliver H. Flanders, as principal, and the defendant, as surety, conditioned that Flanders, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, would, within thirty days, “deliver himself up for examination, before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided by law, and appear at the time and place fixed for his examination, and from time to time until the same is concluded, and not depart without leave of the magistrate, making no default at any…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
Whether the delay of the proceedings until half past four o’clock is to be called an adjournment or a postponement can hardly be material. It was within the authority of the magistrate, and does not appear to have been objected to by either of the parties. They both remained at his office until the appointed time arrived. Upon the original appointment of three o’clock, neither party would have lost any legal right by not appearing earlier than four o’clock. Phelps v. Davis, 6 Allen, 287. The rule is the same in the case of adjournments from day to day, and it is difficult to see why it should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Palmer v. MerrillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lincoln v. CookMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878