Barber v. Floyd
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on a recognizance under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, in the sum of $200, entered into by Samuel E. Floyd as principal, and Samuel Eldridge as surety, and conditioned that Floyd, who had been arrested on execution upon a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $78.11, should, within thirty days from May 12,1870, “ deliver himself up for examination, before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided in and by ”…
Read the full summary
Contract on a recognizance under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, in the sum of $200, entered into by Samuel E. Floyd as principal, and Samuel Eldridge as surety, and conditioned that Floyd, who had been arrested on execution upon a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $78.11, should, within thirty days from May 12,1870, “ deliver himself up for examination, before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof in the manner provided in and by ” the Gen. Sts. c. 124, “ and appear at the time fixed for his examination and from time to time, until the same is…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
The recognizance was valid, though it was in a sum a little more than double the amount of the execution. Currier v. Poor, 5 Allen, 585. Whittier v. Way, 6 Allen, 288.
The agreement, to postpone the hearing before the magistrate on the debtor’s examination, could not affect the surety injuriously. The condition of the recognizance was, that the debtor should deliver himself up for examination before some magistrate within thirty days, giving notice of the time and place of his examination, and appear at the time fixed for his examination, and from time to time, till the same should be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wheelock v. PierceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mount Washington Glass Works v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Chapin v. KingsburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884