Chesebro v. Barme
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon a poor debtor’s recognizance, entered into by the first named defendant as principal and by the other defendant as surety, and containing the usual conditions. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Blodgett, J., who found for the plaintiff; and the defendants alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The first execution against the debtor was issued on July 1,1892, and was returned into court unsatisfied on August 26, 1892, when an alias was issued, upon which the debtor was arrested on September 2, 1892. The defendants contend that the alias was void, because issued before the return day of the original execution.
By our statute, Pub. Sts. c. 171, § 22, an execution must be made returnable in sixty days from its date. This is not equivalent to saying that an execution can be returned to. court only upon its statute return day. The purpose of the enactment is to make a reasonable limit of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Sanders v. Bank of KentuckyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Hammatt v. WymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Briggs v. WardwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Johnson v. HarveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Morgan v. CurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- City of Boston v. SantosuossoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Commissioner of Banks v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Tellefsen v. FeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Goff v. BrittonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- David v. LarochelleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.