Hewes v. Cooper

115 Mass. 42, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 141
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 11, 1874·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

The insertion of the creditor’s name in the condition of the bond, in the place intended for that of the original debtor, thereby requiring literally that the creditor should pay to himself the amount of a judgment which he should recover against the other party in the suit, was a manifest clerical error, which will not vitiate the bond or defeat the intention of the .parties, provided that intent can be distinctly ascertained from the entire instrument. The erroneous name may be stricken out. Leonard v. Speidel, 104 Mass. 356.

An imperfect recital of the preliminary facts, which is correct [44] as far as it goes, provided it describes correctly the suit to which the bond applies, and states with substantial accuracy the condition which is to be fulfilled, will not defeat the creditor’s remedy in a suit on the bond. For this reason the omission in the bond to designate the ownership of the attached property is immaterial. The bond is substantially in conformity to the provisions of the statute. Exceptions sustained.

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

Hewes v. Cooper, 115 Mass. 42, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 141 (Mass. 1874).

115 Mass. 42 (Hewes v. Cooper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

J. J. Tyrrell Co. v. Allen
289 Mass. 570 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Mass. Building Finish Co. v. Brenner
193 N.E. 355 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Werlin v. Equitable Surety Co.
116 N.E. 484 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Howes v. Maxwell
32 N.E. 152 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Burlingham
137 Mass. 581 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)