Flagg v. Tyler
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of debt on bond. The defendant prays oyer of the bond and the condition, by which it appears to have been a replevin bond executed by the defendant as surety for one William Neal, who was plaintiff in replevin and principal in the bond. The bond was pursuant to the statute.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt on bond. The defendant prays oyer of the bond and the condition, by which it appears to have been a replevin bond executed by the defendant as surety for one William Neal, who was plaintiff in replevin and principal in the bond. The bond was pursuant to the statute. The defendant pleads that he ought not to be charged with the said debt by virtue of the said writing obligatory, because he says it was executed as a replevin bond by him and Neal, and delivered to one J. W., a coroner of said county, with a writ of replevin in favor of Neal against the present…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The execution of the bond is admitted, and the bar does not show a performance of the condition, or a release of it, or any illegality in the consideration. The substance of the bar is that the coroner made the replevin against law, Neal not having a right to sue this writ against Flagg, because Flagg had attached the goods as Neal’s in a suit against him. On the facts disclosed by the plea, the coroner ought not to have made the replevin, and the attorney, who granted the writ, if he was privy to all these facts, acted very improperly. The bond is on condition that Neal should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Flagg v. TylerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sherry v. ForesmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1841
- Carroll v. BergerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- McDermott v. IsbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
- Huston v. Big Bend Land Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1924
- Burnham v. MacWhinnieMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.