Larned v. Bruce
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of debt upon a replevin bond, in which the defendant Bruce was principal, and Joel Cranston and Daniel Stephens, jun., the other defendants, were sureties. The defendants prayed oyer of the bond, and of the condition, from which it appears that the defendant Bruce, having sued a writ of replevin of a horse against the plaintiff, gave this bond with the sureties, as required by the statute of 1789, c. 26, that his writ might be executed.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt upon a replevin bond, in which the defendant Bruce was principal, and Joel Cranston and Daniel Stephens, jun., the other defendants, were sureties. The defendants prayed oyer of the bond, and of the condition, from which it appears that the defendant Bruce, having sued a writ of replevin of a horse against the plaintiff, gave this bond with the sureties, as required by the statute of 1789, c. 26, that his writ might be executed. The defendants then plead a general performance of the conditions of the bond. The plaintiff, in his replication, alleges that Bruce…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The issue in law in this case is, whether the rejoinder is, or is not. a sufficient answer to the replication. And we are of opinion that the rejoinder is bad, as being a departure from the bar. The bar alleges a performance of all the conditions contained in the * bond, among which was a [*58] condition to return to Larned the horse, if he should have judgment for a return. The replication alleges such a judgment. The rejoinder does not traverse the judgment for a return, nor does it allege any return; but the defendants would confess and avoid the breach, assigned in the plaintiff’s…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Trainor v. WormanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Pease v. McKusickSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1845