Cook v. Thayer
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a recognizance entered into under the Gen. Stj. c. 124, § 17, by the defendant John A. Thayer, as principal, and the defendant John Thayer, as surety, and conditioned that John A. Thayer, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, should appear on December 11,1875, at ten o’clock, A. M., at the office of A. Perry Peck, a trial justice for the county, in Northampton, being the time and place fixed by the magistrate taking the recognizance, at…
Read the full summary
Contract on a recognizance entered into under the Gen. Stj. c. 124, § 17, by the defendant John A. Thayer, as principal, and the defendant John Thayer, as surety, and conditioned that John A. Thayer, who had been arrested on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, should appear on December 11,1875, at ten o’clock, A. M., at the office of A. Perry Peck, a trial justice for the county, in Northampton, being the time and place fixed by the magistrate taking the recognizance, at the debtor’s request, for his examination as poor debtor, and from time to time until the examination was concluded,…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
The objection taken to the form of the recognizance is untenable. The condition prescribed by the statute is merely that the debtor will appear before “ some magistrate authorized ” to act in the premises; and it is undoubtedly intended to give him the right of selecting for himself any magistrate possessing the requisite jurisdiction. It has been decided that the omission to name the magistrate is not sufficient to render the recognizance of no validity. Adams v. Stone, 13 Gray, 396. Thacker v. Williams, 14 Gray, 324. It does not. appear that he was compelled to accept any particular…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Howard v. RoachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Cook v. ThayerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877