Robinson v. Soule
Mississippi Supreme Court
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Clay County. Hon. J. M. Arnold, Judge. Soule, Thomas & Wentworth brought an action of replevin against Flaniken & Gerdine, for the recovery of a lot of law-books. Under sect. 656 of the Code of 1871, Shotwell & Fitts were substituted in place of Flaniken & Gerdine, and on the 16th of February, 1874, they gave a bond, with W. W. Robinson as their surety, for the forthcoming of the property, to abide the judgment of the court.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Clay County. Hon. J. M. Arnold, Judge. Soule, Thomas & Wentworth brought an action of replevin against Flaniken & Gerdine, for the recovery of a lot of law-books. Under sect. 656 of the Code of 1871, Shotwell & Fitts were substituted in place of Flaniken & Gerdine, and on the 16th of February, 1874, they gave a bond, with W. W. Robinson as their surety, for the forthcoming of the property, to abide the judgment of the court. After the execution of the bond, Shotwell & Fitts were adjudicated bankrupts, and on the 2d of October, 1877, received their discharge.…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
The discharge in bankruptcy of Shotwell & Fitts did not prevent the rendition, “in said suit,” of a judgment for the restoration of the goods ; and, as plaintiff in error was bound by his undertaking, as surety on the replevin bond, for the forthcoming of the goods, “ to abide the judgment of the court in said suit,” he was not released from his obligation by the discharge of Shotwell & Fitts. Eyster v. Gaff et al., 91 U. S. 521; Wolf et al. v. Stix (MS.), U. S. Sup. Ct.
*552The bankruptcy of plaintiff in error, followed by a composition with creditors, with no mention of defendants in error as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Eyster v. GaffSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Freeman v. BosworthMississippi Supreme Court · 1912