Way v. O'Sullivan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a recognizance entered into by Dennis O’SuHi. van as principal, and Daniel Keefe as surety, under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that on November 13,1869, O’Sullivan was arrested on an execution for $244.07 in favor of the plaintiff, and carried before Robert I. Burbank, a master in chancery, where he and Keefe entered into the recognizance in suit; that on December 3, 1869, O’Sullivan was arrested…
Read the full summary
Contract on a recognizance entered into by Dennis O’SuHi. van as principal, and Daniel Keefe as surety, under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that on November 13,1869, O’Sullivan was arrested on an execution for $244.07 in favor of the plaintiff, and carried before Robert I. Burbank, a master in chancery, where he and Keefe entered into the recognizance in suit; that on December 3, 1869, O’Sullivan was arrested on another execution for' $206.59 in favor of the plaintiff, and carried before Burbank, where he entered into another…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The only objection to the validity of the discharge in this case is, that the notices served upon the creditor do not identify the executions to which they were intended to be applicable.
The object of the notice is to inform the creditor of the time and place appointed for the examination'of the debtor. When the debtor has been arrested on only one execution, it is uniformly held that a notice in the form provided by the statute, simply reciting that he has been arrested “on execution in your favor ” is sufficient, without any further description of the execution. This is sufficiently…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hill v. BartlettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878