Bondurant v. Bank of Alabama
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa. This was a proceeding against the sheriff of Marengo, and his sureties, suggesting that the sheriff had made a false return upon an execution issued in favor of the Bank. A notice issued and was served on several of the sureties, but not upon the sheriff.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa. This was a proceeding against the sheriff of Marengo, and his sureties, suggesting that the sheriff had made a false return upon an execution issued in favor of the Bank. A notice issued and was served on several of the sureties, but not upon the sheriff. The sureties upon whom notice was served, appeared by their counsel, and the court was requested by the counsel for the Bank to cause an issue to be made up to try the falsity of the return, but refused on the ground that the sheriff had not been notified of the intended suggestion, and on motion of…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
In the case of Williamson & Daniel v. The Branch Bank at Montgomery, [2 Ala. Rep. 504,] we held, that under the act of 9th January, 1841, a judgment could be obtained, by motion, against the sureties of a sheriff for failing to pay over money which he had collected, on notice to them, although *172no notice had issued to the sheriff. It is now insisted, that the act of 1841 does not reach the case of a false return by the sheriff; that a false return implies fraud, and that such an imputation should not be fixed on the sheriff without his having had notice to appear and contest it.
The language of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Orr v. DuvallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ex parte WilsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Camp v. WattSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848