McGrath v. Conway

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

McGrath v. Conway

116 Mass. 360, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 112

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 3, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 360 (McGrath v. Conway) 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

McGrath v. Conway, 116 Mass. 360, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 112 (Mass. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Ames, J.

The condition of the bond, according to the literal import of its terms, requires that the defendant in the original process should appear at the term at which it was returnable. It is true that, under the changes introduced into the practice in cases of this kind, by the Gen. Sts. c. 72, § 7, the personal appearance of the defendant has not the importance which it had under the earlier statutes; Jordan v. Lovejoy, 20 Pick. 86; and the decree of affiliation may be passed, whether he appears or not. Young v. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50. But as he has distinctly bound himself to appear, his failure to do so must necessarily be considered as technically and formally a breach of the bond. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to maintain her suit, and to have judgment for the penalty of the bond, subject, however, to the provisions of the Gen. Sts. c. 133, §§ 9, 10, that execution shall issue only for so much of the penal sum as is then due and payable in equity and good conscience, for the breach of the condition ; that is to say, for a nominal sum only for this particular breach. If by his failure to comply with such further or final order as the court may pass, in the original process, any further sum should become due on the bond, she can sue out a scire faldas on the judgment, and obtain a new execution for the damages caused by such additional breach.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Ames, J.

The condition of the bond, according to the literal import of its terms, requires that the defendant in the original process should appear at the term at which it was returnable. It is true that, under the changes introduced into the practice in cases of this kind, by the Gen. Sts. c. 72, § 7, the personal appearance of the defendant has not the importance which it had under the earlier statutes; Jordan v. Lovejoy, 20 Pick. 86; and the decree of affiliation may be passed, whether he appears or not. Young v. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50. But as he has distinctly bound himself to appear, his failure to do so must necessarily be considered as technically and formally a breach of the bond. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to maintain her suit, and to have judgment for the penalty of the bond, subject, however, to the provisions of the Gen. Sts. c. 133, §§ 9, 10, that execution shall issue only for so much of the penal sum as is then due and payable in equity and good conscience, for the breach of the condition ; that is to say, for a nominal sum only for this particular breach. If by his failure to comply with such further or final order as the court may pass, in the original process, any further sum should become due on the bond, she can sue out a scire faldas on the judgment, and obtain a new execution for the damages caused by such additional breach.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 Mass. 360, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgrath-v-conway-mass-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack