Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 Me. 74

Scribner v. Mansfield

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided February 25, 1878

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1878-02-25

<p> Poor debtor. Bond. Evidence. </p> <p>Tlie approval of a six months bond in the following terms, “ We, the subscribers, do approve of the sureties named in the foregoing bond: Scribner v. Blossom, per E. S. Ridlon, attorney,” is a statute approval. Poor v. Knight, 66 Maine, 482.</p> <p>In computing the time for the performance of the conditions of a bond given under R. S., c. 113, § 24, the obligors are bound by the date of the bond and the recital of the day of arrest therein.</p> <p>Parol evidence is inadmissible to show that the bond was in fact executed on a subsequent date.</p> <p>Form of a valid statute bond and approval. See statement of the case.</p>

Decided 1878-02-25

Virgin, J.

¶1This is an action of debt on a bond bearing date July 1, 1876, given under the provisions of E. S., c. 113, § 24, to procure the release of the principal from arrest on an execution.

¶2The bond was legally approved. Poor v. Knight, 66 Maine, 482.

¶3The remaining questions raised by the defendants were all settled long ago in Titcomb v. Keene, 20 Maine, 381. Wing v. Kennedy, 21 Maine, 430. See especially Cushman v. Waite, 21 Maine, 540.

¶4It is contended that the statute, (St. 1835, c. 195, § 9) construed by the cases cited, prescribed the arrest as the time from which the six months began to run, while by the present statute (R. S., c. 113, § 24) the six months commence at the date of release from the arrest. We do not so read the present statute. New provisions have been incorporated into the original section, but they in nowise affect the law in this respect. To be sure, the condition of the bond in suit, instead of following the language of the statute, by providing that the principal shall within six months from the time of his arrest (or imprisonment) cite, etc., provides that “ he shall in six months from the time of executing this bond,” etc. But the bond in Cushman v. Waite, supra, contained the same language; and it has been sustained too many times before and since the several revisions of the statute to be disturbed now.

¶5 Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Peters and Libbey, JJ., concurred.
/68/me/74 · .json · Public domain