Apthorp v. North

14 Mass. 167
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 15, 1817·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. If the fact stated in this case, that the bond declared on was offered to the Court for approbation, and was not approved, must necessarily be construed to mean that it was rejected by the Court, the inference drawn by the counsel for the defendants, that it never became effectual by a delivery, would be irresistible.

But such a construction is so inconsistent with other facts in the [149] case, about which there is no question, that we cannot adopt it; and the fact, as stated, must be considered as meaning only that there is no evidence of record of any formal approbation by the court. And in this view of the case, which is now declared to be the true one by the judge who sat in the trial, we think there is no cause for setting aside the verdict.

The case would then be, that the bond given to secure the faithful performance of the duty of a coroner by the principal was duly executed; was delivered to the presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas, who was a subscribing witness, and by him handed to the court. No act of disapprobation by the court is proved; and more than two years afterwards the bond was found on the files of the Court of Sessions; from whence it was taken and delivered to one of the sureties, who attempted to cancel it by tearing off his name and seal. Now, a delivery to the court, or the putting it upon the files of the court, was, in law, a sufficient delivery; because the bond is, in effect, made to the commonwealth, although nominally to its officer, the treasurer; and a reception of it by any officer of the government, if it passed regularly through the Court of Common Pleas, would be a completion of the contract. A formal act or certificate of approbation by the court is * not made necessary by the statute. The act which describes the duty and power of coroners provides that the coroner shall, before he enter upon the duty of his office, give security in the same manner as sheriffs are by law obliged to do.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Apthorp v. North, 14 Mass. 167 (Mass. 1817).

14 Mass. 167 (Apthorp v. North) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lyttle v. Cozad
21 W. Va. 183 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1882)
County Commissioners of Ramsey ex rel. Lee v. Brisbin
17 Minn. 451 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1871)
Wright v. Leath
24 Tex. 24 (Texas Supreme Court, 1859)
McClure v. Colclough
5 Ala. 65 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1843)
Bank of United States v. Dandridge
25 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court, 1827)