Putnam v. Longley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Upon a case stated it appeared, that this was an action of debt upon a joint and several bond executed by one Edes as principal and the defendant and one Moore as sureties, dated June 3, 1830, conditioned that Edes should not depart “without the exterior bounds of the debtors’ liberties ” in Concord, until he should be legally discharged.
Read the full summary
Upon a case stated it appeared, that this was an action of debt upon a joint and several bond executed by one Edes as principal and the defendant and one Moore as sureties, dated June 3, 1830, conditioned that Edes should not depart “without the exterior bounds of the debtors’ liberties ” in Concord, until he should be legally discharged. Edes had been recently committed and was a prisoner in the gaol at Concord, on an execution in favor of Putnam and Perkins, the plaintiffs, and one Cunningham, (who died before the commencement of this suit,) to whom the bond was made. Putnam, Perkins and…
1Opinion of the Court
Shaw C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. It has been decided, that the certificate of two magistrates to the gaoler, that a prisoner committed on execution has taken the poor debtors’ oath, does not prevent the departure of the prisoner out of the limits, from being deemed an escape, nor save the prisoner and his sureties from a forfeiture of their bond, in case the proceedings before the magistrates were not regular and conformable to the statutes. Little v. Hasey, 12 Mass. R. 319.
The sole question therefore in the present case, is, whether those proceedings were conformable to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Little v. HaseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815