Bell v. Pierce

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bell v. Pierce

15 N.E. 119, 146 Mass. 58, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 196

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 N.E. 119 (Bell v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Pierce, 15 N.E. 119, 146 Mass. 58, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 196 (Mass. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The bond was not valid as a bail bond, since it ran directly to the plaintiff in the action, and not to the sheriff or other officer. Pub. Sts. c. 163, § 2. The approval of the master in chancery, therefore, signified nothing. But the bond might be valid at common law, if approved and accepted by the obligee. Pratt v. Gibbs, 9 Cush. 82. An actual or implied acceptance is essential, iii order to constitute a delivery. Hawkes v. Pike, 105 Mass. 560. Chase v. Breed, 5 Gray, 440. 4 Kent Com. 454. Met. Con. 14. In the present case, the plaintiff never authorized nor ratified the taking of the bond; on the other hand, he always repudiated it. Up to the time of the assignment, he obviously intended to do no act to accept or ratify it, and declared, by his counsel, that in any event he should hold the sheriff responsible for the judgment. He thus treated the bond as invalid at a time when, if valid, the sureties could and would have saved the condition by surrendering their principal. It was too late afterwards to make it valid and binding upon them by an act done without their consent and to their injury. Under the circumstances, the assignment of the bond to the sheriff, upon the payment by the sheriff of the amount of the judgment, could not have the effect to give vitality to a bond which up to that time was invalid. Exceptions overruled.

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

C. Allen, J.

The bond was not valid as a bail bond, since it ran directly to the plaintiff in the action, and not to the sheriff or other officer. Pub. Sts. c. 163, § 2. The approval of the master in chancery, therefore, signified nothing. But the bond might be valid at common law, if approved and accepted by the obligee. Pratt v. Gibbs, 9 Cush. 82. An actual or implied acceptance is essential, iii order to constitute a delivery. Hawkes v. Pike, 105 Mass. 560. Chase v. Breed, 5 Gray, 440. 4 Kent Com. 454. Met. Con. 14. In the present case, the plaintiff never authorized nor ratified the taking of the bond; on the other hand, he always repudiated it. Up to the time of the assignment, he obviously intended to do no act to accept or ratify it, and declared, by his counsel, that in any event he should hold the sheriff responsible for the judgment. He thus treated the bond as invalid at a time when, if valid, the sureties could and would have saved the condition by surrendering their principal. It was too late afterwards to make it valid and binding upon them by an act done without their consent and to their injury. Under the circumstances, the assignment of the bond to the sheriff, upon the payment by the sheriff of the amount of the judgment, could not have the effect to give vitality to a bond which up to that time was invalid. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.E. 119, 146 Mass. 58, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-pierce-mass-1888.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack