Burt v. Geary
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Costraot on a recognizance entered into, under the Gen. Sts. o. 124, § 10, by the defendant Geary as principal, and the other as surety, and conditioned that Geary, who had been arrested on July 19, 1878, on an execution in favor of the plaintiffs, should within thirty days from the time of his arrest deliver himself up for examination, before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided by law, and appear at the time…
Read the full summary
Costraot on a recognizance entered into, under the Gen. Sts. o. 124, § 10, by the defendant Geary as principal, and the other as surety, and conditioned that Geary, who had been arrested on July 19, 1878, on an execution in favor of the plaintiffs, should within thirty days from the time of his arrest deliver himself up for examination, before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided by law, and appear at the time fixed for his examination, and from, time to time until the same was concluded, and not depart without leave of the…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
The only question argued or raised is whether the discharge of the poor debtor by the trial justice was authorized by law, or whether the proceedings before him were coram non judiee, and therefore void.
The policy of the legislation of this Commonwealth has been to relieve a poor debtor from arrest and imprisonment for debt, upon its being made to appear, before a competent tribunal, that he has no property, and that he has committed no fraudulent act which should prevent his discharge. The tendency of the legislation has been to simplify proceedings, so that they shall be as little onerous…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Merrill v. KaulbackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893