Cook v. Harrington
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a recognizance, entered into under the Pub. Sts. c. 162, § 28, by the defendant Harrington as principal, and the other defendant as surety, containing the recitals that Harrington, on June 26, 1883, was brought before Edward J. Jones, master in chancery for the county of Suffolk, “ at the office of the jail in the city of Boston, by John A. Duggan, a constable of said Boston, having been arrested by him, under and by virtue of a certain writ of execution in an…
Read the full summary
Contract upon a recognizance, entered into under the Pub. Sts. c. 162, § 28, by the defendant Harrington as principal, and the other defendant as surety, containing the recitals that Harrington, on June 26, 1883, was brought before Edward J. Jones, master in chancery for the county of Suffolk, “ at the office of the jail in the city of Boston, by John A. Duggan, a constable of said Boston, having been arrested by him, under and by virtue of a certain writ of execution in an action of tort,” &c.; that the debtor, being interrogated by the magistrate, “ says that - he desires to take the oath…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
A magistrate is authorized by the Pub. Sts. c. 162, § 28, to take an execution debtor’s recognizance to deliver himself up for examination within thirty days from the day of his arrest, only when the debtor is taken before him upon being arrested as required by § 27. By § 44, if at that time he does not desire to take an oath, he is to be kept in jail until he has recognized “as herein provided.” This he can do by causing *41notice to be given of his desire to take the poor debtor’s oath, under § 31, and then recognizing that he will appear at the time fixed for his examination, &c., as provided…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Learnard v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872