TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Danker v. Atwood

Alfred Danker v. James S. Atwood

Danker v. Atwood, 119 Mass. 146 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1875
Judges
Gray
Citations
119 Mass. 1461875 Mass. LEXIS 95
Headnotes
A bond purporting in its body to be executed by J. S., “ as principal and--as sureties,” and signed by the principal and A., is good against A. as surety, if duly executed by the principal, and it does not appear that A., at the time of execut ng it, understood that it was to be executed by any other person as surety. The surety upon a bail bond is liable in scire facias thereon, if the writ upon which the principal was arrested is identified by a date, the court, the full name of the plaintiff, and the surname of the defendant, although his Christian name, as expressed in the bond, was not inserted in the writ.
Summary
Scire facias against the defendant as surety upon the following bond: “ Know all men by these presents : That we, Samuel Snow, of Bath, State of Maine, as principal, and--as sureties, are holden, and stand firmly bound and obliged unto W. H. Warren, Jr., one of the Constables of the city of Boston, in the sum of three hundred dollars, to be paid unto said W. H. Warren, Jr., his executors, administrators or assigns ; to which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. “ Witness our hands and seals. Dated the third day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four. “ The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the body of the above bounden Samuel Snow is taken by force of a writ or process, bearing date February third, A. D. 1874, wherein Alfred Danker, plaintiff, and said Samuel Snow is defendant, returnable before our Justices of the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, next to be holden at said Boston, within and for said county, for civil business, on Saturday, the fourteenth day of February, A. D. 1874, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, to answer unto said plaintiff in an action of tort, commenced by said plaintiff to be heard and tried at said court, as by the return of said writ or process will appear. “ Now therefore, if the above bounden Samuel Snow shall appear before said justices of said court, to be holden as aforesaid, to answer unto said plaintiff in said action or process, and shah abide the final judgment thereon, and shall not avoid, then the above written obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and virtue. “ Samuel Snow. (Seal.) “James S. Atwood. (Seal.)” The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and after judg ment for the plaintiff for $198.15, to this court on appeal, upon agreed facts in substance as follows: On February 3, 1874, the plaintiff sued out a writ from the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, said writ being returnable to said court February 14, 1874, and the defendant in said writ was described as “Mr. Snow, chief mate of ship Emma.” By virtue of said writ the said Snow was arrested on mesne process, and signed and affixed his seal as principal to the said bail bond, which bond so signed was, by the officer, at the request of Snow, and upon his representations that the defendant Atwood would become surety for him thereon, sent to the store of Atwood, and was returned soon after with the signature of the defendant upon it, and thereupon the officer released Snow from arrest. The obligee in the bond is the officer who made the arrest, and no alteration was made in the bond after the. defendant signed it. The plaintiff recovered judgment March 2, 1874, against “ Mr. Snow, chief mate of ship Emma,” for $150 damages, and $34.04 costs of suit, and on this judgment execution issued from said court March 13,1874, against “-Snow, chief mate of ship Emma.” The execution was returned to the court by the officer, in due season, wholly unsatisfied, and with a proper return thereon. On July 14, 1874, the plaintiff brought the present action against Atwood, in said Municipal Court. The writ recited the judgment obtained against-Snow on March 2, 1874, and that “ James S, Atwood of said Boston, at Boston aforesaid on the third day of February, A. D. 1874, became bail and surety for the said ——- Snow,” and proceeded in the usual form of a scire facias.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gray, C. J.

The bond containing the name of Samuel Snow as principal, followed by a blank before the words “ as sureties,” and signed by Samuel Snow and James S. Atwood, shows upon its face that Atwood must have signed as surety. Smith v. Crooker, 5 Mass. 538 . Burns v. Lynde, 6 Allen, 305 , 308, 310. *148 United States v. Nelson, 2 Brock. 64, 70 . Ex parte Fulton, 7 Cowen, 484. Stone v. Wilson 4 McCord, 203 . The bond waa duly executed by the principal, and it does not appear that Atwood, at the time of executing it, understood that it was to be executed by any other person as surety. Cutter v. Whittemore, 10 Mass. 442 . Herrick v. Johnson, 11 Met. 26 . Russell v. Ann able, 109 Mass. 72 . The writ upon which the principal had been arrested is sufficiently identified by the date, the court, the full name of the plaintiff, and the surname of the defendant, although his Christian name, as expressed in the bond, was not inserted in the writ. Atwood was therefore rightly held liable in the present action. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1877–1878: 11879–1880: 11887–1888: 11889–1890: 11909–1910: 11913–1914: 21923–1924: 118772026peak 1913 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hall v. Parker37 Mich. 590 (1877)
  2. Nusbaum v. Hartford Fire Ins.120 A. 481 (Pa. 1923)
  3. Fry v. P. Bannon Sewer Pipe Co.101 N.E. 10 (Ind. 1913)
  4. Blackmer v. Davis128 Mass. 538 (1880)
  5. Carson v. National Life Insurance77 S.E. 353 (N.C. 1913)
  6. Henry O. Shepard Co. v. Freeman105 P. 484 (Mont. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Nusbaum v. Hartford Fire Ins.120 A. 481 (Pa. 1923)
  2. Carson v. National Life Insurance77 S.E. 353 (N.C. 1913)
  3. Fry v. P. Bannon Sewer Pipe Co.101 N.E. 10 (Ind. 1913)
  4. Henry O. Shepard Co. v. Freeman105 P. 484 (Mont. 1909)
  5. Guez v. Dupuis25 N.E. 740 (Mass. 1890)
  6. Building Ass'n v. Cummings45 Ohio St. (N.S.) 664 (1888)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Smith v. Crooker, 5 Mass. 538 (1809) 48
Russell v. Annable, 109 Mass. 72 (1871) 38
Cutter v. Whittemore, 10 Mass. 442 (1813) 36
United States v. Nelson, 27 F. Cas. 82 (1822) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list