Wooldridge v. Quinn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. I. There can he no doubt but that this bond was taken under the statute. While it is not, strictly speaking, in every respect just such a bond as the statute contemplates, it is in substantial compliance with its requirements, and must be presumed to have been executed with reference to the statute, and must be interpreted by the light thereof.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. I. There can he no doubt but that this bond was taken under the statute. While it is not, strictly speaking, in every respect just such a bond as the statute contemplates, it is in substantial compliance with its requirements, and must be presumed to have been executed with reference to the statute, and must be interpreted by the light thereof. (Heyneman v. Eder, 17 Cal. 433.) In determining the effect of the words used in the condition of the bond, the intention of the parties ought to override any mere technical objection to the form of the expression ;…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The nlaintiff instituted a suit against defendant Quinn for the delivery of personal property, and Quinn, with the other defendants, executed a bond claimed to have been given under section 4 of the act (Wagn. Stat. 1024), and retained the property.
The plaintiff obtained judgment, the- damages were assessed, and judgment rendered against the obligors in the bond for the damages so assessed and costs, according to the provisions of section 14. (Wagn. Stat. 1026.) Execution was issued and levied on the real estate of E. A. Holcomb, one of said obligors. Holcomb thereupon filed a motion to quash…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gillett v. MathewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- Huttig-McDermid Pearl Button Co. v. Springfield Shirt Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- R. W. Wilson Motor Co. v. HooverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
- Hoeffler Manufacturing Co. v. Casualty Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916