Mattler v. Brind
Colorado Court of Appeals
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. Plaintiee in error was plaintiff below. In 1889, Brind (defendant in error) sued out an attachment against Mattler (plaintiff in error) and made an attachment bond, as principal, executed by Adams and DeMange (codefendants in error) as sureties. The bond was in form as required by statute. Brind failed to maintain his suit and the attachment was dissolved.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County. Plaintiee in error was plaintiff below. In 1889, Brind (defendant in error) sued out an attachment against Mattler (plaintiff in error) and made an attachment bond, as principal, executed by Adams and DeMange (codefendants in error) as sureties. The bond was in form as required by statute. Brind failed to maintain his suit and the attachment was dissolved. Mattler brought’ this suit upon the bond against both principal and sureties to recover damage sustained by reason of the proceedings in attachment. Upon the trial it was objected that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, J.,
after stating the facts delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question presented is, whether, under our statute and civil code of practice, recovery can be had against princi*440pal and sureties in an attachment bond in the same original proceeding. The obligation is, “If the court shall finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled to an attachment, the plaintiff will pay all costs that may be awarded to the defendant and all damages he may sustain by reason of the wrongful suing out of the attachment, not exceeding,” etc. The trouble arises from the fact that it is not a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dickinson v. M'CrawCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1826
- Churchill v. AbrahamIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
- Herndon v. ForneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Sterling City Gold & Silver Mining & Tunneling Co. v. CockSupreme Court of Colorado · 1873
- Bruce v. ColemanOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1855