Stack v. O'Brien

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtMORTON
Citation32 N.E. 351,157 Mass. 374
Decision Date22 November 1892
PartiesSTACK v. O'BRIEN.

157 Mass. 374
32 N.E. 351

STACK
v.
O'BRIEN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

Nov. 22, 1892.


Exceptions from superior court, Berkshire county.

Action by Stack against O'Brien on a poor debtor's recognizance. A verdict for plaintiff was entered in the superior court, and defendant excepted. Exceptions sustained.


[157 Mass. 374]J.F. Noxon, for plaintiff.

H.C. Joyner, for defendant.


MORTON, J.

It appears that the recognizance for breach of which this action is brought was taken by a special justice of the district court of central Berkshire. It does not appear from the record that it was taken by him while exercising the powers and duties of the court. Without considering the matter of the notice, we think this is an insuperable objection to the plaintiff's recovery. The Public Statutes (chapter 162, § 27) provided that a poor debtor arrested on execution (and the defendant is to be treated in [157 Mass. 375]this case, under the provisions of Pub.St. c. 85, § 20, as one) should be “taken before some judge of a court of record, or of a police, district, or municipal court, or a master in chancery, commissioner in insolvency, or, except in the county of Suffolk, before a trial justice.” Under this it was held in Gibbs v. Taylor, 143 Mass. 187, 9 N.E.Rep. 576, that a special justice of a district court was authorized to take a recognizance from a person arrested on execution at a time when the court was not in session. Chapter 419 of the Acts of 1888 and chapter 415 of the Acts of 1889, however, made important changes in the proceedings under chapter 162, Pub.St., in the cases of persons arrested on execution, and desiring to take the poor debtor's oath. Instead of being taken before some judge of a court of record, or of a police, district, or municipal court, it is provided in section 5, c. 419, Acts 1888, which is amendatory of section 27, c. 162, Pub.St., that he “shall be taken before some court of record, or police, district, or municipal court, or, only if he wishes to recognize, a master in chancery, or, only if he wishes to recognize, a commissioner of insolvency, or, except in the county of Suffolk, a trial justice.” This and other provisions of chapter 419, Acts 1888, and chapter 415, Acts 1889, render it apparent that the court as a court is to deal with the matter, and not the person who may hold the office of a judge of the court. Thus section 2, c. 419, Acts 1888, provides that the magistrates or courts before whom the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Bent v. Stone
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 1, 1903
    ...issued, ret. Aug. 10, '96. Aug. 10, neither party appeared. July 14, 1897, Ex'on r't'd for renewal.’ And, relying upon Stack v. O'Brien, 157 Mass. 374, 32 N. E. 351, the defendant contends that the recognizance is invalid. The special justice had no authority to take the recognizance, excep......
  • Toy v. Green
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 26, 1946
    ...Court does not show that it was taken before a justice of that court when exercising his powers and duties as such. Stack v. O'Brien, 157 Mass. 374, 376, 32 N.E. 351;Bent v. Stone, 184 Mass. 92, 95, 68 N.E. 46. The docket in the Municipal Court showed the following: ‘December 16, 1943, Hear......
  • Warburton v. Gourse
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 1906
    ...a judicial inquiry, and it may be presumed that throughout the hearing the standing justice of the court was present. Stack v. O'Brien, 157 Mass. 374, 32 N. E. 351;Adams v. Pierce, 177 Mass. 206, 207, 58 N. E. 591;Bliss v. Kershaw, 180 Mass. 99, 103, 61 N. E. 823; Bent v. Stone, ubi supra. ......
  • Commonwealth v. Ryan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 25, 1892
    ...the laws relating to elections. The same chapter contains many offenses of this kind, and in the trial of some of them, according to [32 N.E. 351the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, evidence of the contents of a ballot might be relevant and material, and even absolutely necessary. I......
4 cases
  • Bent v. Stone
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 1, 1903
    ...issued, ret. Aug. 10, '96. Aug. 10, neither party appeared. July 14, 1897, Ex'on r't'd for renewal.’ And, relying upon Stack v. O'Brien, 157 Mass. 374, 32 N. E. 351, the defendant contends that the recognizance is invalid. The special justice had no authority to take the recognizance, excep......
  • Toy v. Green
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 26, 1946
    ...Court does not show that it was taken before a justice of that court when exercising his powers and duties as such. Stack v. O'Brien, 157 Mass. 374, 376, 32 N.E. 351;Bent v. Stone, 184 Mass. 92, 95, 68 N.E. 46. The docket in the Municipal Court showed the following: ‘December 16, 1943, Hear......
  • Warburton v. Gourse
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 1906
    ...a judicial inquiry, and it may be presumed that throughout the hearing the standing justice of the court was present. Stack v. O'Brien, 157 Mass. 374, 32 N. E. 351;Adams v. Pierce, 177 Mass. 206, 207, 58 N. E. 591;Bliss v. Kershaw, 180 Mass. 99, 103, 61 N. E. 823; Bent v. Stone, ubi supra. ......
  • Commonwealth v. Ryan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 25, 1892
    ...the laws relating to elections. The same chapter contains many offenses of this kind, and in the trial of some of them, according to [32 N.E. 351the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, evidence of the contents of a ballot might be relevant and material, and even absolutely necessary. I......

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