Hart v. Adams

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hart v. Adams

73 Mass. 581

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1856

StatusPublished

This text of 73 Mass. 581 (Hart v. Adams) 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

Hart v. Adams, 73 Mass. 581 (Mass. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

The officer then moved for leave to amend his first return, by inserting an allegation that he could not conveniently find any one of the magistrates above enumerated; and to amend his second return, by stating that he committed Hart to jail by virtue of the execution ; and supported the motion by his own affidavit of the truth of the facts stated in the proposed amendments.

Hutchinson objected that the right of the petitioner to an immediate discharge could not now be affected by amendments of the officer’s returns.

But the Court allowed the amendments; and held, that if ■the debtor, on being carried before a magistrate, pursuant to St. 1855, c. 444, § 4, did not ask to be admitted to take the poor debtors’ oath, it was the duty of the magistrate to certify that fact, and the duty of the officer to commit him on the execution as it would have been before this statute. Prisoner remanded.

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

The officer then moved for leave to amend his first return, by inserting an allegation that he could not conveniently find any one of the magistrates above enumerated; and to amend his second return, by stating that he committed Hart to jail by virtue of the execution ; and supported the motion by his own affidavit of the truth of the facts stated in the proposed amendments.

Hutchinson objected that the right of the petitioner to an immediate discharge could not now be affected by amendments of the officer’s returns.

But the Court allowed the amendments; and held, that if ■the debtor, on being carried before a magistrate, pursuant to St. 1855, c. 444, § 4, did not ask to be admitted to take the poor debtors’ oath, it was the duty of the magistrate to certify that fact, and the duty of the officer to commit him on the execution as it would have been before this statute. Prisoner remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 Mass. 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-adams-mass-1856.