Bell v. Pierce
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a bond executed by the defendant and others as sureties, and by Frank T. Fay as principal, reciting that they were “holden and stand firmly bound unto Wilbur M. Bell,” and conditioned that Fay, who had been arrested on mesne process in an action of contract in which Bell was also plaintiff, should appear before the Superior Court, abide its final judgment, and not avoid. The bond was approved by a master in chancery.
Read the full summary
Contract on a bond executed by the defendant and others as sureties, and by Frank T. Fay as principal, reciting that they were “holden and stand firmly bound unto Wilbur M. Bell,” and conditioned that Fay, who had been arrested on mesne process in an action of contract in which Bell was also plaintiff, should appear before the Superior Court, abide its final judgment, and not avoid. The bond was approved by a master in chancery. Trial in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., without a jury, who found the following facts: The bond declared on was executed by the defendant and his co…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The bond was not valid as a bail bond, since it ran directly to the plaintiff in the action, and not to the sheriff or other officer. Pub. Sts. c. 163, § 2. The approval of the master in chancery, therefore, signified nothing. But the bond might be valid at common law, if approved and accepted by the obligee. Pratt v. Gibbs, 9 Cush. 82. An actual or implied acceptance is essential, iii order to constitute a delivery. Hawkes v. Pike, 105 Mass. 560. Chase v. Breed, 5 Gray, 440. 4 Kent Com. 454. Met. Con. 14. In the present case, the plaintiff never authorized nor ratified the taking of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hawkes v. PikeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Graves v. AptMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919