Martin v. Bolenbaugh
Ohio Supreme Court
EeROe to the District Court of Hardin county. On the 3d day of March 1817, L. A. Gormley, one of the plaintiffs in error, commenced an action in the court of common pleas of Hardin county, against J. H. Poore, for the recovery of the possession of certain chattels, of which he alleged he was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession, and which he alleged were wrongfully detained by the defendant, Poore.
Read the full summary
EeROe to the District Court of Hardin county. On the 3d day of March 1817, L. A. Gormley, one of the plaintiffs in error, commenced an action in the court of common pleas of Hardin county, against J. H. Poore, for the recovery of the possession of certain chattels, of which he alleged he was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession, and which he alleged were wrongfully detained by the defendant, Poore. An order of replevin was duly issued and placed in the hands of Isaac Bolenbaugh, sheriff of the county, for service, by virtue of which he took the goods into his possession.…
1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.
1. The first alleged error relied upon as ground of reversal of the judgment below, is that the writing sued upon was unauthorized ; that it was the duty of the sheriff to require an undertaking in replevin payable .to Poore, the defendant in the replevin suit, before delivering the property to Gormley, and that public policy did not sanction his demanding or taking indemnity against the consequences of acts not authorized by law.
The ease of Purple v. Purple, 5 Pick. 226, where it was held that: “A replevin bond made to the replevying officer instead of the defendant in replevin is void,” is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Colt v. EvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Webb v. Pond & LansingNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Caldwell v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1863
- Kirksey v. FriendSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872