Phelps v. Davis
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the surety on a recognizance taken under Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, with condition that Henry Hobart, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, should within thirty days from the time of his arrest deliver himself up for examination, giving notice as therein provided, and making no default, and abide the final order of the magistrate thereon.
Read the full summary
Contract against the surety on a recognizance taken under Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, with condition that Henry Hobart, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, should within thirty days from the time of his arrest deliver himself up for examination, giving notice as therein provided, and making no default, and abide the final order of the magistrate thereon. Judgment was ordered for the defendant in the superior court, upon agreed facts, which are sufficiently stated in the opinion ; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
On the day first appointed for the examination of Hobart, neither he nor the plaintiff would have lost any legal right by not appearing earlier than eleven o’clock. Both parties were legally entitled to one hour’s delay. Niles v. Hancock, 3 Met. 568. Hobbs v. Fogg, 6 Gray, 251. And the court have *288no'doubt that when the hearing of a case is adjourned from one day to another, there is the same reason for allowing to each party an hour beyond that to which the adjournment is made, as for allowing it on the day first appointed for a hearing. Shufelt v. Cramer, 20 Johns. 309. In the present case,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Johnson v. HigginsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1861
- Shufelt v. CramerNew York Supreme Court · 1822