Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Mass. 377

Rayner v. Bell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1819-03-15

Case against the defendant, for having taken insufficient bail, in an action instituted by the plaintiff against one Clark. At the triai before Parker, C. J., it was in evidence that Bell had arrested Clark, and taken one surety only on the bail bond. He returned on the original writ that he had taken bail, and on the execution, which issued on the judgment, he returned non est inventus.

Decided 1819-03-15

By the Court.

¶1This case is settled by the case of Young vs. Hosmer, 11 Mass. Rep. 89. There seems to be no reason for requiring a creditor first to prosecute a fruitless suit against the bail; thus increasing the final expense to the officer. If he has taken insufficient bail, the wrong is then done, and the right of action accrues, (a) Judgment on the verdict.

¶2 Mather vs. Green, 17 Mass. Rep. 60.

/15/mass/377 · .json · Public domain