Hawley v. Warner
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Decatur District Court. One Hellar, brought replevin against Hawley, the plaintiff in this action. A bond was executed in the usual form, signed by Hellar and Warner, and others, as his sureties. A trial was had, and judgment rendered to the effect that Hawley was “ entitled to the possession of the property in the plaintiff’s petition, and that a writ of restitution issue for the same.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Decatur District Court. One Hellar, brought replevin against Hawley, the plaintiff in this action. A bond was executed in the usual form, signed by Hellar and Warner, and others, as his sureties. A trial was had, and judgment rendered to the effect that Hawley was “ entitled to the possession of the property in the plaintiff’s petition, and that a writ of restitution issue for the same.” This order not being complied with, Hawley brings this action on the bond, to which the defendants answered, among other things, that the property did not belong to the plaintiff at the time of…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
In this ruling we think there was error. If the plaintiff in the replevin action, was entitled to the possession of the property, he was entitled to recover without reference to the question of ownership. And when it was found, in that action, that he was entitled to such possession, without a finding as to the ownership, such judgment did not conclude the defendants,.when sued upon the replevin bond, from showing title in ITellar, and that it ivas not on Hawley. In an action on the bond it is always material to inquire into the damages sustained by the party, for whose benefit it was made,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buck v. RhodesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hayden ex rel. Adams v. AndersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Marix v. FrankeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872