152 Mass. 454 | Mass. | 1890
We think none of the plaintiff’s objections to the bond sufficient to invalidate the defendant’s appeal.
1. It was not necessary to name the surety in the body of the bond. Danker v. Atwood, 119 Mass. 146. Ahrend v. Odiorne, 125 Mass. 50.
2. There were two seals in fact, and that is enough. Mill Bam Foundery v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417, 428.
3. It was not necessary to specify the day of the month in the date of the bond. Shaughnessey v. Lewis, 130 Mass. 355.
4. The statement of the damages and costs conforms to the record. The insertion of the word “ and” after “ twenty dollars” signifies nothing, since it was not followed by any further sum in cents.
5. The principal obligor is described throughout the body of the bond as Mary Dupuis, but she signed it as Mary J. Dupuy. This bond was seasonably filed for an appeal bond, and was approved by the court. This shows that the defendant adopted both names, which are probably pronounced alike. She was also described in the writ as 41 Mary Dupuis, otherwise known