Tevis v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Lewis Circuit Court. The only question seems tobo Whether abond, signed by a firm in the partnership name, be a bond or not. The law governing the case will be found in 1st Mo. R. p. 139, and in Collier on Partnership 258-9; these authorities will, it is presumed, show the bond in this case to be good, at least against him who executed, and it was approved as good by the clerk.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Lewis Circuit Court. The only question seems tobo Whether abond, signed by a firm in the partnership name, be a bond or not. The law governing the case will be found in 1st Mo. R. p. 139, and in Collier on Partnership 258-9; these authorities will, it is presumed, show the bond in this case to be good, at least against him who executed, and it was approved as good by the clerk. If the bond was not good, yet the suit should not nave been dismissed, but time should have been given to amend it. See Stat. 3845, p. 335, §6. 1st. The bond in this case is insufficient. It is not shewn that…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
The plaintiffs in error commenced proceedings against the defendant by attachment, for the recovery of a sum of money. On the return, of the writ, the defendant-appeared and moved to quash the writ, for the reasons that the bond required by law before the issuance of a writ of attachment was not in pursuance of the statute; that no attachment bond was filed; that the bond filed was void. The bond, it seems, was executed by two of the plaintiffs, Tevis & Scott, as principals, whose names are inserted in the obligatory part of it, with a blank for the names of the sureties: the bond was…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Pierse v. MilesMontana Supreme Court · 1885
- Claflin v. HooverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- R. L. McDonald & Co. v. E. Fist & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Wells v. McCradySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Jasper County v. ChenaultSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.