Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

120 Mass. 147

Simpson v. Trivett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1876-03-04

<p>A poor debtor, who has entered into a recognizance under the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 10, to deliver himself up for examination, commits a breach thereof, if at the time and place appointed he appears, and objects to the commencement of the examination, until the execution upon which he was arrested is produced; and the refusal of the magistrate to order the examination to proceed is immaterial.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1895

3 state decisions

Relies on Fuller v. Meehan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-03-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Devens, J.

¶1By the conditions of his recognizance the debtor was bound to deliver himself up for examination within the time therein specified. According to the facts as, under the instructions of the court, they must have been found by the jury, he has not done this, unless his appearance before the magistrate without offering to submit to an examination but objecting thereto constitutes such a delivery. An appearance before a magistrate for the purpose of objecting to an examination is not, however, a delivery of himself up for an examination. Nor is it an answer that the magistrate made no peremptory order that the debtor should be sworn, submit to the examination and reply to the interrogatories. There was no unwillingness nor refusal by the magistrate to go on, in which case it might have been contended that the proceeding had failed by reason of hi* *153fault. But when it was for the debtor to submit himself to examination, if he would perform the condition of his recognizance,, there was no duty incumbent on the magistrate to order him so to do. He was not examined, simply because he declined to be examined.

¶2The fact that the execution was not before the magistrate at the time the interrogatories were proposed was unimportant. In case the creditor desired to arrest the debtor, if the oath should be refused him, it was only necessary that he should have the execution there in time for the magistrate to indorse his certificate of refusal thereon. Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 26. Fuller v. Meehan, 118 Mass. 135.

¶3The cases cited by the defendants, which hold that under the United States Bankrupt Act, (U. S. St. of 1867, c. 176,) a bankrupt, by declining to submit to an examination, previously to a decision upon the question whether he is legally bound so to do, is not in contempt, do not affect the present question. The examination which the debtor was to undergo was a voluntary one, after a notice issued at his own request and served upon the plaintiff. He could not interpose objections and yet claim that he had submitted to it. Exceptions overruled.

/120/mass/147 · .json · Public domain