Noyes v. Manning
| Decision Date | 06 September 1893 |
| Citation | 159 Mass. 446,34 N.E. 682 |
| Parties | NOYES v. MANNING. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Pending the examination, a charge of fraud was filed by a creditor, that, at the time the debtor contracted the judgment debt, he intended not to pay the same. The presiding judge found that the debtor did not have property above the amount of $20 which could be taken on execution and administered the oath, but did find him guilty of fraud and sentenced him to imprisonment, and attached his certificate thereof under the statute. The debtor appealed from the finding and sentence of the court on the charge of fraud, and recognized for his appearance in the superior court. The defendant personally appeared in the superior court, but neither the creditor nor his attorney appeared and the creditor was nonsuited. The nonsuit was removed, and the defendant excepted. The defendant asked the court to rule that the administering the oath for the relief of poor debtors in the municipal court to the debtor was a legal discharge from the charge of fraud, and a bar to the proceedings in the superior court, which the court refused to do.
P.J. Casey, for appellant.
J.J. Feeley, for appellee.
We are all of opinion that the superior court rightly refused to give the ruling which was asked. A majority of the court is of opinion that under Pub.St. c. 162, §§ 39, 52, the judge of the municipal court had no authority to administer the oath concurrently with his finding the debtor guilty upon the charge of fraud, and that his act of administering the oath under such circumstances was a mere nullity; the case being distinguishable from Lockhead v. Jones, 137 Mass 25, where the oath was not administered until an appeal had been taken from the conviction upon the charge of fraud, and a new application had been made by the debtor after the entry of the appeal. A minority of the court think that, under the decision of Lockhead v. Jones, the oath was lawfully administered, but that it, nevertheless, did not have the effect to discharge the debtor upon the charge of fraud. In either view the debtor was properly convicted upon the charge of fraud. It was within the discretionary power of the superior court to remove the nonsuit. Both in civil and criminal cases an order of court may be revised at the same term or sitting of the court. Com. v. Weymouth, 2 Allen, 144; Lowe v. Brigham...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little v. Mathews
...137 Mass. 25 . Macaig's Case, 137 Mass. 467 . Everett v. Henderson, 150 Mass. 411 . Leonard v. Bolton, 153 Mass. 428 , 430. Noyes v. Manning, 159 Mass. 446 , S. 162 Mass. 14. Under the present law the only result of conviction on charges of fraud is a sentence of imprisonment. [1] But under......
-
Morse v. O'Hara
...been taken. Morse v. Dayton, 125 Mass. 47;Smith v. Dickinson, 140 Mass. 171, 3 N. E. 40;Lockhead v. Jones, 137 Mass. 25;Noyes v. Manning, 159 Mass. 446, 34 N. E. 682;Clatur v. Donegan, 126 Mass. 28;Fletcher v. Bartlett, 10 Gray, 491; Mowry's Case, 112 Mass. 394;Lamagdelaine v. Tremblay, 162......
-
Little v. Mathews
...Case, 137 Mass. 467;Everett v. Henderson, 150 Mass. 411, 23 N.E. 318;Leonard v. Bolton, 153 Mass. 428, 430, 26 N.E. 1118;Noyes v. Manning, 159 Mass. 446, 34 N.E. 682; Id., 162 Mass. 14, 37 N.E. 768. Under the present law the only result of conviction on charges of fraud is a sentence of imp......
- Standard Button Fastening Co. v. Ellis