Champion v. Noyes

2 Mass. 481
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 15, 1807·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was afterwards delivered by

Parsons, C. J.

To this scire facias the defendant pleads in bar of the execution. The substance of the plea is, that the principal is a certificated bankrupt; that the original judgment was for a debt he owed the plaintiff before the bankruptcy, and which might have been proved under the commission ; and that the certificate has been allowed since the rendition of the judgment. To this plea there is a general demurrer and joinder. * If [ * 483 J [434] the facts thus pleaded are sufficient in law to excuse the bail from satisfying the judgment, and from surrendering the principal, the plea is good; otherwise, the plaintiff must have his execution.

In determining this question, it will be necessary to examine the cases at common law, and the English statutes of bankruptcy, which apply to the bail of a certificated bankrupt; and to compare them with our own laws relating to this subject.

As to bail in civil actions at common law, when the defendant is arrested on a copias, and holden to special bail, he must give bail by bond to the sheriff, conditioned that he shall appear according to the exigence of the writ. On this bond, although the principal is in the custody of his bail, yet they cannot surrender him to the sheriff; but, to save the bond, the defendant must appear and put in bail to the action. This bail by bond is called the bail below. If the condition of the bond be broken, and a remedy be sought on the bond, it must be by action of debt in the name either of the sheriff or of the plaintiff, to whom it may be assigned. If the defendant appear and put in bail above, or to the action, it must be done by way of recognizance before the court, or some judge, or a commissioner, which is afterwards filed, so as to be of record. The condition of the recognizance is, in substance, that the principal shall pay the debt, or surrender his body to be taken in execution, or that the debt shall be paid by the bail. If the bail surrender the principal before judgment, or after judgment and before non est inventus be returned on the copias ad satisfaciendum, the condition of the recognizance is not broken, (a) So if, before that return be made, the principal be taken from the custody of the bail by death, or by the operation of an act of Parliament, which they could not control, the recognizance is saved at law. But by the practice of the courts in Westminster Hall, founded on their own rules, if, after the recognizance be forfeited at law, the bail shall, within the time prescribed by their rules, surrender to the court the principal, that he may be committed to be charged in execution by the plaintiff, the bail shall be discharged. (b) If the judgment re [ * 484 ] main in force, the bail are said to be fixed to the * pay ment of it, when they cannot obtain a discharge, either at law, or ex gratia, by virtue of the rules of court. Therefore, if the principal die after non est inventus be returned on the copias ad satisfaciendum, the bail are then fixed, for they cannot after-[435] wards surrender him. So, if the time indulged by the rules for surrendering the principal be elapsed, the bail are then also fixed; for at all events they are liable to satisfy the plaintiff’s judgment. (a)

If we compare these provisions with our laws, "we shall observe a great difference in form, although similar principles may in most jases regulate the practice.

In this state the original writ, on which a defendant may be liolden to bai, is an authority to the sheriff, not only to attach him by his goods or estate, but, for want thereof, by his body, to appear and answer to the plaintiff, agreeably to the exigency of the writ. If the defendant, having his body attached, would give bail, it must be given by bond to the sheriff, with a condition that the defendant shall appear and answer the plaintiff, and further, that he shall abide the order and judgment of the court in the action, and shall not avoid. The effect of this condition is, that the defendant shall satisfy the plaintiff’s judgment, or surrender his body to be taken in execution, or that the bail shall pay the debt. This bond, thus given, when returned by the sheriff, has immemorially been considered so far a matter of record, that the plaintiff may sue out a scire facias on it in his- own name against the bail. And this practice was sanctioned by a provincial statute passed as early as the 5 W. and M. (b)

The bail thus given answers the same purposes as the bail below, and the bail above, at common law; and nothing is a breach of the condition of this bond which is not also a breach of the candi tian of the recognizance of the bail. Until the writ is returned, the principal, although in the custody of the bail, cannot be surrendered by them to the sheriff. After the writ is returned, and before final judgment, the bail may surrender the principal to the court in which the suit is pending, and be discharged; and the principal, when surrendered, * shall be committed [*485] to the prison of the county, there to remain until thirty days after the rendition of the judgment, — to be charged in execution, unless, before judgment, he gives new bail to the sheriff by bond as aforesaid, which, if forfeited, may be the foundation of a scire facias against the bail.

In twenty-four hours after the rendition of judgment, an execution may issue; of which there is but one form, where the defend ant may be liolden to bail on the original writ.

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

Champion v. Noyes, 2 Mass. 481 (Mass. 1807).

2 Mass. 481 (Champion v. Noyes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kane v. Town of Hudson
389 N.E.2d 737 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)
DiRuscio v. Popoli
269 Mass. 482 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Rall Cotton Co. v. Terry
3 R.I. Dec. 134 (Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1927)
Kalloch v. Elward
108 A. 256 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1919)
Keyes v. Bennett
122 Ill. App. 60 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Duncan v. Owens
47 Ark. 388 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1886)
Long v. Dickerson
15 F. Cas. 825 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1879)
Jones v. State
1 Tex. Ct. App. 485 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1877)
De Myer v. McGonegal
32 Mich. 120 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1875)
Heustis v. Rivers
103 Mass. 398 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1869)
Warren v. Gilmore
65 Mass. 15 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1853)
Lawton v. State
5 Tex. 270 (Texas Supreme Court, 1849)
Farnham v. Gilman
24 Me. 250 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1844)
Craggin v. Bailey
23 Me. 104 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1843)
Aiken v. Richardson
15 Vt. 500 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1843)
Chandler v. Byrd
1 Ark. 152 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1838)
Lowther v. Lawrence
1 Wright 180 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1833)
Townsend v. Morris
6 Cow. 123 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)
Ryan v. Watson
2 Me. 382 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1823)
Hamilton v. Dunklee
1 N.H. 172 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1818)