Thompson v. Pierce
Supreme Court of Alabama
The plaintiff brought suit before a justice of the peace, upon a bond entered into by one Nixon, with the defendant and several others as securities, of which the condition was, that «if said Samuel Nixon shall well and truly personally appear before the said James H. Wood and John Thomas, 0n the 17th day of November next,” &e.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff brought suit before a justice of the peace, upon a bond entered into by one Nixon, with the defendant and several others as securities, of which the condition was, that «if said Samuel Nixon shall well and truly personally appear before the said James H. Wood and John Thomas, 0n the 17th day of November next,” &e. “and then and there make surrender of his property or effects, for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as is now provided by the laws of this State, for the relief of insolvent debtors, and shall in all things, stand to and abide by all orders to be made by…
1Opinion of the Court
By JUDGE TAYLOR.
It is insisted by the dant’s counsel, that the bond varies from the statute, and is void for two reasons. 1st. Because it contains a condition not authorized bylaw, in the following words, viz: “and shall in all things, stand to and abide by all orders be made by the said James H. Wood and John Thomas, (the justices,) in relation thereto. ” 2d. Because it is not specified in the bond that the time at, and place on which Nixon was bound to appear to take the oath of insolvency, had been designated by the justices to whom the application had been made. But if this Court should…
2Cited by1 opinion
- South & North Alabama Railroad v. SealeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877