Hazard v. Slade
Supreme Court of Vermont
THiS was an actiosl against the defendant, former Sheriff of Addison county, for taking insufficient bail on mesne process, at the suit of the present plaintiff, against ~M. Hull. Plea-the general issue.
Read the full summary
THiS was an actiosl against the defendant, former Sheriff of Addison county, for taking insufficient bail on mesne process, at the suit of the present plaintiff, against ~M. Hull. Plea-the general issue. On trial the plaintiff proved the insolvepey of both the principal and the b~til, and the consequent Toss of his debt~ slated that at the time ^ie ba‘l were received by the Sheriff, they were sufficient, and therefore by the act passed the 7th of November, 1806, the Sheriff is not liable m this action. The evidence produced on the part of the defendant, proved, that J. Hull and W. Hull at the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
• It must be a real, not- merely an ostensible sufficiency. The words of the statute are, “ The officer serving such process, (attachments on mense process) shall not be made liable for the insufficiency of such surety or sureties, if he shall, on trial, make it appear that, at the time of receiving such said surety or sureties, the same were amply sufficient. A mere ostensible sufficiency will not excuse, it must be real and ample, a substantial responsibility in point of property, and such as would probably continue so, to answer the demand.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of Middlebury v. Town of RutlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Mason v. ChaseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1955