Flowers v. Flowers

45 Me. 459
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1858·Published

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Tenney, C. J.

The bond declared upon in this action, was not for just double the sum for which the debtor, the principal obligor was arrested on execution, and therefore not conformable to the E. S. of 1841, c. 148, § 20. The case discloses nothing which shows that this departure was by reason of any mistake, accident or misapprehension, and, consequently, is not brought within the provision of § 43 of the same chapter. The bond, therefore, cannot be treated as a statute bond. Dyer v. Woodbury, 24 Maine, 546. And the other provisions of the statute, c. 148, before cited, were disregarded without effect upon the obligor. Clark v. Metcalf, 38 Maine, 122.

The first condition in the bond is shown to have been performed, and judgment must be entered for the defendants.

Eice, Hathaway, Appleton, May, and Davis, J. J., concurred.

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

Flowers v. Flowers, 45 Me. 459 (Me. 1858).

45 Me. 459 (Flowers v. Flowers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.