Pease v. Norton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Dekt on n bond dated Nov. 1R. 1,827. in the penal stint oí $247 88; conditioned “ that whereas the above bounden James Norton hath been and now is arrested by Nathaniel Tilton, deputy sheriff for the county of Cumberland, by virtue of an execution issued against him the said James Norton on a judgment recovered against him by the said Simeon Pease at the Court -of Common Pleas holden at Alfred, within and for the county of York, on the third Tuesday of October, 1827, for the…
Read the full summary
Dekt on n bond dated Nov. 1R. 1,827. in the penal stint oí $247 88; conditioned “ that whereas the above bounden James Norton hath been and now is arrested by Nathaniel Tilton, deputy sheriff for the county of Cumberland, by virtue of an execution issued against him the said James Norton on a judgment recovered against him by the said Simeon Pease at the Court -of Common Pleas holden at Alfred, within and for the county of York, on the third Tuesday of October, 1827, for the sum of one hundred and nine dollars, debt or damage, and costs of suit taxed at eight dollars and seventy four cents,…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court at the ensuing July term in Waldo.
In the case of Buker v. Haley & al. decided in this county, April term 1828, the bond declared on was given by the defendants to BuJcer, the officer who had made the arrest, and that circumstance was urged as an objection against the validity of the bond. The statute of 1824, ch. 281, being silent as to the person to whom the bond should be given, the court considered the objection as unsubstantial ; and that there was nothing in the act forbidding such a bond. In the case before us the bond was given to Pease…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Daniels v. WagnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922