May v. Hammond
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a poor debtor’s recognizance, entered into on May 24,1884, under the Pub. Sts. c. 162, § 28, by the first-named defendant as principal, and the other defendant as surety, and containing the usual conditions. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who ruled that the action could not be maintained, and directed a verdict for the defendants ; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
The defence in this case is that the recognizance is void, because the arrest is said to have been unlawful for the reason that the certificate of the magistrate authorizing the arrest did not conform to the requirements of the statutes. The affidavit was in proper form, but the magistrate certified “ that after due hearing I am satisfied, upon the evidence, that the charge made in said affidavit is true,” instead of certifying that “I am satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge made in said affidavit is true.” Pub. Sts. c. 162, § 17.
Smith v. Bean, 130 Mass. 298,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. BeanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
3Cited by2 opinions
- Swanson v. City of OttumwaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Jewell v. NuhnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915