Mosher v. Murphy

Decision Date20 November 1876
PartiesAugustus Mosher v. Timothy C. Murphy
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Bristol. Contract on the following bond executed by John Doherty, as principal, and by Dennis Garvey and the defendant, as sureties:

"Know all men by these presents, that we, John Doherty, of Fall River, in the county of Bristol, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as principal, and Dennis Garvey and Timothy C Murphy, of said Fall River, as sureties, are holden and stand firmly bound and obliged unto Augustus Mosher of Fall River in the county of Bristol, and Commonwealth aforesaid, in the full and just sum of six hundred dollars, to be paid unto said Mosher, his executors, administrators or assigns; to which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals. Dated the eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five.

"The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas said Mosher has caused the goods and estate of said Doherty, to the value of three hundred dollars, to be attached on mesne process, in a civil action, by virtue of a writ, bearing date the thirtieth day of April, A. D. 1875, and returnable to the Second District Court of Bristol, to be holden at Fall River, within the county of Bristol, in said Commonwealth, on the fourth Monday of May instant; in which writ said Augustus Mosher is plaintiff, and said John Doherty is defendant; and whereas said defendant wishes to dissolve the said attachment, according to law. Now, therefore, if the above bounden Doherty 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."

The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court on appeal, on an agreed statement of facts, in substance as follows:

The attachment in the action mentioned in the bond was by the trustee process, in which the Fall River Bleachery was summoned as trustee of John Doherty. The bond was signed voluntarily by the defendant, and, upon the acceptance of the bond by the plaintiff, the trustee was discharged and the attachment dissolved voluntarily. Judgment was recovered against Doherty, and execution issued on the judgment. Doherty neglected to satisfy the execution and judgment within thirty days after recovery of judgment, and continued so to do.

If the defendant was liable, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff for the amount of judgment and interest; otherwise, judgment for the defendant.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

A. N. Lincoln, for the plaintiff.

H. K. Braley, for the defendant.

Colt J. Devens & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

The St. of 1875, c. 68, § 2, declares that no bond shall be given to dissolve an attachment, which does not contain a condition obliging the sureties to pay the special judgment, which by the first section is provided for, in order to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gaslight Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 31 Diciembre 1914
    ...to dissolve attachment, and becomes bankrupt, Fickett v. Durham, 119 Mass. 159; Barnstable Sav. Bank v. Higgins, 124 Mass. 115; Mosher v. Murphy, 121 Mass. 276; removal of in personal injury suits of traveling on the Lord's Day, Bucher v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 131 Mass. 156, 41 Am.Rep. 216; ......
  • Castaline v. Swardlick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 22 Septiembre 1928
    ...in strict conformity to requirements of a statute may be enforced as a bond at common law. Holbrook v. Klenert, 113 Mass. 268;Mosher v. Murphy, 121 Mass. 276. [3][4] The words of the ordinary statutes of limitations are that the actions of the several kinds described ‘shall be commenced onl......
  • Massasoit-Pocasset Nat. Bank v. Borden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 11 Diciembre 1917
    ...not made in the mode provided by the statute under which it purports to have been given, Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 5 Allen, 413;Mosher v. Murphy, 121 Mass. 276;Pray v. Wasdell, 146 Mass. 324, 16 N. E. 266;Farr v. Rouillard, 172 Mass. 303, 52 N. E. 443;Howe v. Grimes, 211 Mass. 33, 97 N. E.......
  • Fazzano v. Martin
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1919
    ...same result by voluntary mutual agreement. Robertson & Govanne Const. Co. v. AEtna Acc. & Liab. Co., 91 Conn. 129, 99 A. 557; Mosher v. Murphy, 121 Mass. 276, 278. That the bond is not in the form prescribed for proceedings under the statute (Revised Statutes, § 5888) is therefore without o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT