Osgood v. Kezar

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Osgood v. Kezar

138 Mass. 357, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 191

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 Mass. 357 (Osgood v. Kezar) 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

Osgood v. Kezar, 138 Mass. 357, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 191 (Mass. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The adjournment of the poor debtor’s examination was to ten o’clock. The hearing was resumed at eleven, and ended in the debtor’s discharge. If this is construed fairly, it can only mean that the debtor was present before the hour elapsed, and we are surprised that the contrary should have been argued.

The continuance was granted at the debtor’s request, “ with agreement that the debtor should in the mean while pay three dollars.” This may import that the agreement was the consideration for the creditor’s not opposing the adjournment, but it does not even suggest that payment was a condition of the debtor’s right to be heard at the adjourned hearing. The magistrate’s conduct shows that he had not intended to make such a condition; and it is therefore unnecessary to inquire by what authority he could have imposed it. See Coleman v. Hawkes, 120 Mass. 594. Judgment for the defendant.

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

Holmes, J.

The adjournment of the poor debtor’s examination was to ten o’clock. The hearing was resumed at eleven, and ended in the debtor’s discharge. If this is construed fairly, it can only mean that the debtor was present before the hour elapsed, and we are surprised that the contrary should have been argued.

The continuance was granted at the debtor’s request, “ with agreement that the debtor should in the mean while pay three dollars.” This may import that the agreement was the consideration for the creditor’s not opposing the adjournment, but it does not even suggest that payment was a condition of the debtor’s right to be heard at the adjourned hearing. The magistrate’s conduct shows that he had not intended to make such a condition; and it is therefore unnecessary to inquire by what authority he could have imposed it. See Coleman v. Hawkes, 120 Mass. 594. Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 Mass. 357, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osgood-v-kezar-mass-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack