Marple v. Burton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Marple v. Burton

10 N.E. 467, 144 Mass. 79, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 121

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 25, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 10 N.E. 467 (Marple v. Burton) 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

Marple v. Burton, 10 N.E. 467, 144 Mass. 79, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 121 (Mass. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The only question in this case is whether a debtor, who has been arrested on execution, and has recognized with surety, with condition that, within thirty days from the day of his arrest, he will deliver himself up for examination before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof, as provided in the Pub. Sts. a. 162, § 28, must have the notice served upon the creditor within the thirty days. This question, though not directly involved in Barnes v. Ladd, 130 Mass. 557, was discussed, and the court declared that the statute implied nothing more than that the debtor should present himself to the magistrate for the purpose of initiating the proceedings for his examination and discharge. It is now contended that this construction enables a magistrate to issue a notice returnable a long time after the expiration of the thirty days, which fact might not be known to the creditor till long afterwards. This is possible, if the magistrate should be willing so far to misconduct himself; but the construction of the statute is hardly to be tested by the supposition of an extreme case of this sort. The inconveniences of the construction contended for by the plaintiff are pointed out in Barnes v. Ladd, and the opinion there given has no doubt been acted on as expressing the duty of a debtor, and must now be adhered to.

Judgment affirmed.

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

C. Allen, J.

The only question in this case is whether a debtor, who has been arrested on execution, and has recognized with surety, with condition that, within thirty days from the day of his arrest, he will deliver himself up for examination before some magistrate authorized to act, giving notice of the time and place thereof, as provided in the Pub. Sts. a. 162, § 28, must have the notice served upon the creditor within the thirty days. This question, though not directly involved in Barnes v. Ladd, 130 Mass. 557, was discussed, and the court declared that the statute implied nothing more than that the debtor should present himself to the magistrate for the purpose of initiating the proceedings for his examination and discharge. It is now contended that this construction enables a magistrate to issue a notice returnable a long time after the expiration of the thirty days, which fact might not be known to the creditor till long afterwards. This is possible, if the magistrate should be willing so far to misconduct himself; but the construction of the statute is hardly to be tested by the supposition of an extreme case of this sort. The inconveniences of the construction contended for by the plaintiff are pointed out in Barnes v. Ladd, and the opinion there given has no doubt been acted on as expressing the duty of a debtor, and must now be adhered to.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.E. 467, 144 Mass. 79, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marple-v-burton-mass-1887.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack