Wood v. Barker
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by William Wood, against Stephen B. Barker and others, the sureties of said Barker; and was founded on‘an attachment bond, executed by the defendants, in a suit previously brought by said Barker against the plaintiff in this suit. The attachment bond was conditioned as the statute prescribes.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by William Wood, against Stephen B. Barker and others, the sureties of said Barker; and was founded on‘an attachment bond, executed by the defendants, in a suit previously brought by said Barker against the plaintiff in this suit. The attachment bond was conditioned as the statute prescribes. The breaches alleged in the complaint were — 1st, that the attachment was not prosecuted to effect, but was dismissed by the plaintiff therein ; 2d, that said attachment was wrongfully sued out; and, 3d,…
1Opinion of the Court
R. W. WALKER,. J.
If the attachment was not vexatious as against the defendant himself, the fact that the attaching creditor was actuated by malice against some third person, not aparty to the process, affords no ground for the recovery of vindictive damages in this suit.
[2-8.] A part of the testimony of the witness Williams consisted of "the declarations which the defendant made at the time the attachment was issued', -as to his reasons for having it issued. These declarations were admissible as part of the res gestee.—Pitts v. Burroughs, 6 Ala. 735-6, and cases cited; Dearing v. Moore, 26…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pitts v. BurroughsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Dearing v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Green v. MaclinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bullard v. LambertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1866
- Florence Oil & Refining Co. v. HuffColorado Court of Appeals · 1900
- Gabel v. HammerwellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1870
- Florence Oil & Refining Co. v. HuffColorado Court of Appeals · 1900