Central Mills Co. v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 20 October 1882 |
| Citation | 133 Mass. 461 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Central Mills Company v. James Stewart & another |
Worcester. Contract on a bond, dated January 31, 1881 executed only by James Stewart and John H. Autcliff, "as sureties," and reciting that whereas the plaintiff "has caused the goods and estate of P. T. Walsh, to the value of one hundred dollars, to be attached on mesne process, in a civil action, by virtue of a writ, bearing date the seventeenth day of January, A. D. 1881, and returnable to the First District Court of Southern Worcester, to be holden at Southbridge, within and for the county of Worcester, in said Commonwealth, on the twenty-eight day of February next in which writ said Central Mills Company is plaintiff, and said P. T. Walsh is defendant; and whereas said defendant wishes to dissolve the said attachment, according to law: Now therefore, if the above bounden Stewart and Autcliff shall pay to the plaintiff in said action the amount, if any, which he shall recover therein, within thirty days after the final judgment in said action, then the above written obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, to remain in full force and virtue." Writ dated May 3, 1882.
The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court, on appeal, upon an agreed statement of facts, in substance as follows:
On January 17, 1881, the plaintiff commenced an action against P. T. Walsh, John Walsh and Anthony Walsh, on a writ returnable before the First District Court of Southern Worcester, and caused a car-load of old iron, then standing at the railroad station in Southbridge, to be attached on the writ, and caused a summons to be served upon P. T. Walsh, but none was served upon either John Walsh or Anthony Walsh; and the writ was duly entered in that court, on February 28 1881.
The defendants in this action made a claim to the iron so attached, but afterward offered to give a bond in order to obtain possession of the iron, and entered into the obligation sued upon. The attachment was released, and the defendants received the iron. The District Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which judgment an appeal was taken to the Superior Court, and the appeal was duly entered therein. The action was tried in the Superior Court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against P. T. Walsh, for the sum of $ 44.08 debt or damage, and $ 55.66 costs of suit, dated March 31, 1882, and on April 19, 1882, execution was issued on that judgment, and demand for payment was duly made; and thirty days from the time of issuing the execution having expired, and the judgment not being in any part satisfied, after due notice to these defendants this action was brought.
Exceptions overruled.
J. M Cochran, for the plaintiff.
C. F Stevens, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massachusetts Bldg. Finish Co. v. Brenner
...language is, that it refers to a judgment against himself’-the defendant executing the bond as principal. See, also, Central Mills Co. v. Stewart, 133 Mass. 461, 463. Compare Campbell v. Brown, 121 Mass. 516, 519;Prior v. Pye, 164 Mass. 316, 41 N. E. 353, and cases cited. The bond, therefor......
-
American Agricultural Chem. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...bond. It is settled that bonds failing to satisfy the statutory formal requisites have no validity as statutory bonds. Central Mills Co. v. Stewart, 133 Mass. 461, 462;Wall v. Kelly, 209 Mass. 370, 371, 95 N. E. 858;Massasoit-Pocasset National Bank v. Borden, 228 Mass. 581, 583, 117 N. E. 9......
-
Bowen v. Lovewell
...the Governor. 10 Wall. (U.S.) 395, 406; 15 Peters, 290; 79 Ill. 564; 13 Iowa 322; 26 Fed. Cas. 428; 57 Cal. 157; 86 Cal. 367; 24 P. 1072; 133 Mass. 461; Pa.St. 307; 78 N.W. 98. 3. If given voluntarily, the bond was good as a common law obligation. 16 N.Y. 439; 28 Id. 318; 41 Id. 464; 133 Ma......
-
In re Bullock
...by the plaintiff were denied rightly. There is nothing at variance with this result in O'Hare v. Downing, 130 Mass. 16;Central Mills Co. v. Stewart, 133 Mass. 461;Fogel v. Dussault, 141 Mass. 154, 7 N. E. 17. Generally no inquiry is made into the merits of exceptions on a petition to establ......