Bartlett v. Hunt
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Winnebago County. Action against a sheriff and tbe sureties on bis official bond, for damages resulting to tbe plaintiffs from tbe neglect of said sheriff to make sale of property levied upon under an execution in their favor against one Larrabee, and also neglecting to make return of tbe execution. Tbe complaint stated that tbe plaintiffs bad obtained leave of said circuit court to prosecute tbe action.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Winnebago County. Action against a sheriff and tbe sureties on bis official bond, for damages resulting to tbe plaintiffs from tbe neglect of said sheriff to make sale of property levied upon under an execution in their favor against one Larrabee, and also neglecting to make return of tbe execution. Tbe complaint stated that tbe plaintiffs bad obtained leave of said circuit court to prosecute tbe action. Tbe answer, after a general denial, alleged that tbe sheriff, in omitting to make sale, acted according to tbe directions of Mr. Edmonds, one of tbe firm of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cole, J.
The counsel for the appellants assumes in his argument that it was necessary, by the law as it existed under the revised statutes of 1849, that there should be a direct recovery against the sheriff for his default or misconduct in office, before a suit could be maintained on his official bond. The sureties, it is claimed, were only liable after the remedy against the sheriff had been exhausted. It ap*217pears to us tbat tbis assumption is unfounded. Sec. 77, chap. 10, R. S., 1849, prescribes the conditions of tbe bond wbicb the sheriff was required to give. It was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kane v. Union Pacific RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1876
- Downer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1931
- Joint School District No. One v. LyfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871