Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Joseph M. Hayes Woolen Co. v. Benedict

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 6, 1892PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Gowrt. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisheb, Judge. (1) The obligation of a surety on a bond is limited to the precise terms of the undertaking. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the instrument he is bound, but no further. Hof singer v. Hartnett, 84 Mo. 549; Bauer v. Gabanne, 108 Mo. 110; Cochrane v. Stewart, 63 Mo. 424; City v. Sickles, 52 Mo. 122; State to use v. Boon, 44 Mo. 254; Mfg. Co. v. Hibbs, 21 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Gowrt. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisheb, Judge. (1) The obligation of a surety on a bond is limited to the precise terms of the undertaking. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the instrument he is bound, but no further. Hof singer v. Hartnett, 84 Mo. 549; Bauer v. Gabanne, 108 Mo. 110; Cochrane v. Stewart, 63 Mo. 424; City v. Sickles, 52 Mo. 122; State to use v. Boon, 44 Mo. 254; Mfg. Co. v. Hibbs, 21 Mo. App. 574; Bayburn v. Beaver, 8 Mo. 104; Clark v. Mulrein, 82 Cal. 167. (2) A plaintiff must recover, if at all, upon the…

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This was an action upon an. indemnifying bond given under the sheriff and marshal’s act relating to St. Louis. The cause was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,026 damages, and $63.76 interest. The defendants, appealing, assign for error that the bond was given to indemnify the-relator against a levy upon two hundred and ten pieces of goods, and that, under the evidence adduced by them and the instructions of the court, the recovery is for the conversion of two hundred and thirty pieces. This, stated in different ways, is substantially the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Little v. DonnellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. Luebbering v. OberkoetterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Peckham v. Lindell Glass Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1881

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Martin v. WhitesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
  2. Cowherd v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API