Flagg v. Jones
This text of 113 Mass. 325 (Flagg v. Jones) 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 writ was in due form, returnable at the Superior Court to be holden at Lawrence on the first Monday of March, 1869. No attachment of goods or estate was made, and the arrest of the defendant was the only service of the writ upon him which was required by law. Gen. Sts. c. 123, §§ 10, 11, 23. The bail bond is indeed, by our statutes, to be considered so far a matter of record that it can be enforced by scire facias only, but it is no part of the record for any other purpose. Gen. Sts. c. 125, § 8. Bean v. Parker, 17 Mass. 591. Crane v. Keating, 13 Pick. 339. It is at least doubtful whether the misrecital m the bond, of Salem for Lawrence, in describing the court to which the writ was returnable, would defeat a writ of scire facias upon the bond. Crofts v. Stockley, 2 Moore & Payne, 81; S. C. 5 Bing. 32. Arnold v. Allen, 8 Mass. 147. Colburn v. Downes, 10 Mass. 20. Glezen v. Rood, 2 Met. 490. But, however that may be, it affords no ground for dismissing this action.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
113 Mass. 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagg-v-jones-mass-1873.