Hoshaw v. Gullett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal froth Lawrence Circuit Court. .1. The bond is wholly void. It was not given by the defendant or by any third person, in whose hands the property was found.
Read the full summary
Appeal froth Lawrence Circuit Court. .1. The bond is wholly void. It was not given by the defendant or by any third person, in whose hands the property was found. (Sewall vs. Franklin, 2 Porter, 493; 4 Stewart and Porter, 397; Drake Att., § 333.) I. It is not necessary “that the bond show on its face that the property was found in the hands of defendant.” ' Defendant assumes by his intervention in making the bond that he is in possession of the property; and that he has a right to thus intervene on account of the property. And if he fails to comply with the conditions of the bond, he is…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
*209Plaintiff brought his suit by attachment, and the sheriff attached certain personal property belonging to one of the defendants in the suit. The appellant in this case with others gave a bond for the forthcoming and delivery of the property and obtained possession of the same. The attachment suit was duly prosecuted to judgment, and an execution was issued and returned, “no property found.” The sheriff assigned the bond to the plaintiff by order of court; and notice was served on the appellant stating that a motion would be filed in court to have judgment entered on the bond. Upon hearing the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Newton v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Hastings v. HennesseyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894