Case Name: New England Steam and Gas Pipe Company vs. William B. Parker & another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1858-03
Citations: 10 Gray 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: New England Steam and Gas Pipe Company vs. William B. Parker & another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
New England Steam and Gas Pipe Company vs. William B. Parker & another.
It is no defence to a bond to dissolve an attachment, that' within thirty days after judgment in the original action the principal took the benefit ol the insolvent laws.
Action of contract on a bond made by Hubbard Blakesley as principal, and the defendants as sureties, to dissolve an attachment on mesne process. The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following statement of facts:
The due execution and delivery of the bond are admitted. In the action in which it was given, the plaintiffs recovered judgment on the 26th of March 1856, upon which execution issued the day following. That judgment is wholly unsatisfied. On the 7th of April 1856 a warrant in insolvency was issued against Blakesley upon his own petition, the first publication of notice of which was on the 8th of April. If these proceedings in insolvency are a good defence to this action, judgment is to be entered for the defendant; otherwise, for the plaintiff.
B. Dean, for the plaintiff.
M. G. Cobb, for the defendants,
cited St. 1838, c. 163, § 7; Loring v. Eager, 3 Cush. 188; Murray v. Shearer, 7 Cush. 333; Sampson v. Clark, 2 Cush. 173.

Opinion:
Metcalf, J.
The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on this statement of facts. The condition of the bond, which the defendants executed as sureties, has been broken. Judgment was recovered against the principal before he applied for a discharge under the insolvent laws, and neither he nor the defendants paid the amount of the judgment within thirty days after it was rendered. The discharge of the principal from that judgment, and from his obligation on his bond, does not discharge the defendants from their obligation. It is provided by St. 1838, c. 163, § 7, that no discharge of any debtor, under that statute, shall release or discharge any person who may be liable for the same debt as a surety for the debtor. Judgment must therefore be' entered for the penalty of the bond, and the defendants will be heard in chancery as to the sum for which execution shall issue. If the plaintiffs have proved their judgment against the principal before the commissioner of insolvency, the defendants may probably have the amount of the dividend, which is decreed thereon, deducted from the sum for which they would otherwise be liable. This, however, and other questions, cannot be definitely settled previously to the hearing in chancery.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.