Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889

Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Bacon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided February 28, 1889 · Allen

148 Mass. 542; 20 N.E. 175; 1889 Mass. LEXIS 318

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Marotta v. American Surety Co. of New York (1st Cir. 1933)
National Shawmut Bank v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1929)
Rinaldi v. Rodzik (Mass. 1926)
Jacobs v. Curtiss (Conn. 1896)
City of Deering v. Moore (Me. 1893)
Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Bacon (Mass. 1890)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

C. Allen, J.

The only question is as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s declaration. The averment that the defendant executed to it a bond is in the form given in the statutes for a declaration upon a bond, and implies a delivery of the bond to the plaintiff. Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 94, Schedule of Forms. The bond is a several obligation. If the defendant, knowing that Caduc had not signed it as principal, but intending never*544theless to be himself bound as surety, executed the bond and delivered it as it is, as and for his bond, he may be held liable upon it. Caduc was liable without a bond. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Caduc, 144 Mass. 85. The declaration imports a state of facts which, if proved, will entitle the plaintiff to recover. Herrick v. Johnson, 11 Met. 26.

The objection that the defendant’s signature was not under seal was not specified in the demurrer, and is not now open. Pub. Sts., c. 167, § 12.

Judgment reversed, and demurrer overruled.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.