Case Name: Eleanor Dwyer versus Thomas Brannon and Benjamin Richardson
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1810-03
Citations: 5 Tyng 330
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Eleanor Dwyer versus Thomas Brannon and Benjamin Richardson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
* Eleanor Dwyer versus Thomas Brannon and Benjamin Richardson.
Upon a smre fados to a recognizance entered into in the Municipal Court by one who had been adjudged the putative father of a bastard child, the defendants pleaded an accord and satisfaction, and, upon competent evidence, a verdict was found for them; the plaintiff, on a motion for a new trial, was not allowed to object to the plea.
Whether the Municipal Court can take a recognizance in such a case, or is confined to the taking of a bond, Qutere.
The defendant Brannon, having been, by the Municipal Court in Boston, on the prosecution of the plaintiff, adjudged the putative father of her bastard child, entered into a recognizance to her, before that court, for the maintenance of the child ; and this action is scire facias on that recognizance. The defendants pleaded the payment and receipt of 150 dollars, by way of accord and satisfaction. This plea was traversed, and an issue to the country joined on the traverse.
At the trial, the defendants gave in evidence, to maintain the issue on their part, the plaintiff’s receipt for the money in full, and a deposition of John Hurd, Esq.; and on this evidence a jury found a verdict for the defendants.
The plaintiff objected to the verdict, that this evidence was in law incompetent to maintain the issue for the defendants; and to support this objection, it was argued by her counsel that the plea was bad, and no answer to her writ. The defendants, besides insisting on the competency of their evidence, urged the nullity of the scire facias, on the ground that the Municipal Court could only sentence the principal to give a bond to the plaintiff with sureties and could not take from him a recognizance.
Munroe for the plaintiff.
Selfridge and Shaw for the defendants.

Opinion:
Curia.
If the plea is a good answer to the plaintiff's writ, the defendants' evidence is without doubt competent to maintain the issue on their part. But whether the plea be good or bad, is not now to be questioned on a motion for a new trial. The objection is on record, and the plaintiff must seek her remedy by error, if the plea is bad.
Neither on this motion can the defendants' objection to the recognizance be heard. It is on the record, and, if aggrieved, they have another remedy.
* The verdict cannot be set aside ; but the defend- [ * 331 J ants may enter their judgment on it.