Andrews v. Cassidy

• Decision Date: 28 June 1886
• Citation: 7 N.E. 545,142 Mass. 96
• Parties: ANDREWS and others v. CASSIDY and another.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

142 Mass. 96
7 N.E. 545

ANDREWS and others
v.
CASSIDY and another.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 28, 1886.

This was a petition for mandamus. The petition set forth that the petitioners, copartners, having their usual place of business in Boston, on June 26, 1885, duly recovered judgment against G.I. Robbins, of said Boston, in the municipal court of the city of Boston, on which execution duly issued on June 30th, and that, after all due and proper proceedings on the same, the said defendant duly appeared before William E. Cassidy, a commissioner in insolvency within and for the county of Suffolk, for the purpose of taking the oath for the relief of poor debtors; that the said Robbins was duly sworn, and an examination was signed by the debtor, being continued over two separate terms; that said written examination was signed by the debtor on July 31, 1885, and the cause or hearing continued to August 11, 1885, by the magistrate, for a consideration of questions of law and of fact in the case; and that on said day, the same being the day to which the cause had been continued, and pending the proceedings, no decision having been rendered by the magistrate, and while the case was still open, the plaintiff presented to the magistrate “charges of fraud” against the said debtor, the same being in writing and duly sworn to, and the same were read, but the magistrate declined to allow the same to be filed, on the ground that the hearing was closed, although no decision had then or has since been given in the cause. The prayer of the petition was for a writ of mandamus to compel the said William E. Cassidy to allow said charges of fraud to be filed, and that the debtor might be ordered to plead to the same. The respondents' answer admitted the facts as alleged; and, further answering, said that on July 31, 1885, said Robbins duly signed and swore to said examination in writing; that witnesses were then and there duly sworn and heard in said proceedings; that arguments were then and there made by the counsel for the parties to said proceedings; and said respondents claimed that said case was then closed, and that said commissioner then continued said proceedings, as alleged in the petition; and, answering further, the said respondents said that said commissioner refused to allow said charges to be filed because the same were offered too late, not having been filed, or offered for filing, at any time pending the examination of said...