
    Abraham Sanborn versus Francis C. Keazer & al.
    
    Üiider the operation of the statute of 1848, chap. 85, no action upon a poor debtor’s bond can be sustained, if the creditor suffered no damage by the breach of it.
    Though there was a breach by reason of the irregular organization of the justice’s court, yet if they actually administered the oath, and if the breach occasioned no damage to the creditor, the action must fail.
    The breach of such a bond is of no damage to the creditor, if the debtor had no attachable property.
    Debt on a poor debtor’s six months bond. The debtor had within the six months, taken the oath, mentioned as one of the conditions of the bond; and the defendants relied upon the certificate of two justices of the quorum, to that effect. The bond was dated December 1, 1846.
    It was admitted that neither, at the time of giving the bond or of making the disclosure, had the debtor any property not exempt from attachment and execution.
    Several objections were raised against the organization of the justices’ court.
   Wells, J. orally.

— Though there may have been a breach of the bond, on account of irregularity in organizing the justices’ Court, still if, in fact, they administered the oath, the case falls under the act of 1848, chap. 85. If the debtor had no property, the breach of the bond was of no damage to the creditor. In this case there was no property, and therefore no damage. Plaintiff nonsuit.  