Blood v. Austin
This text of 20 Mass. 259 (Blood v. Austin) 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.
Opinion
The demand for security was sufficient. It was made in such terms that the officer who committed the debtor could not mistake it ; and his answer that neither the creditor nor his attorney would make any provision or give any security, rendered any other demand unnecessary, he being by the statute an agent whose refusal would bind the creditor.
We think also the claim for support made by the prisoner sufficient. He represented himself as a pauper and claimed support, which is all the law intends. If he were notoriously able to support himself, this might be shown as evidence of collusion between him and the officer, and it would not avail the officer in his defence.1
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 Mass. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blood-v-austin-mass-1825.