Love v. H. H. Sheffelin & Co.
Supreme Court of Florida
This was a rule against Samuel B. Love, Sheriff of Gadsden County, entered on the 5th day of March, 1855, to shew cause why the money collected by him on a certain fi. fa. wherein Sheffelin & Co., were plaintiffs, and B. S. Hawley, was defendant, should not be paid to said plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
This was a rule against Samuel B. Love, Sheriff of Gadsden County, entered on the 5th day of March, 1855, to shew cause why the money collected by him on a certain fi. fa. wherein Sheffelin & Co., were plaintiffs, and B. S. Hawley, was defendant, should not be paid to said plaintiffs. The said Love answered that he had been served with a notice from Clinton Thigpin, Administrator &c., of B. S. Hawley, that a motion would be made for a rule against him to pay over the said moneys in hand to said Thigpin, administrator as aforesaid, and also notifying him that the estate of said Hawley is…
1Opinion of the CourtBaltzell, C. J.
A motion is made to dismiss the appeal in this case, on the ground that those who have signed their names as securities to the appeal bond are prohibited by rule of Court, from occupying this relation to any suitor. It is not controverted that one of them is an attorney of the Circuit Court, and the other the Sheriff of the county of Gadsden. The rule of Court is to this effect: “No attorney or other officer of the Court shall enter himself or be taken as bail in any criminal case, or as security in attachment, appeal or writ of error, or other proceeding in Court, on pain of being considered…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Nash v. HaycraftSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
- State Ex Rel. Florida Bar v. OxfordSupreme Court of Florida · 1960
- McWhirter v. DonaldsonUtah Supreme Court · 1909
- Sedgwick v. DawkinsSupreme Court of Florida · 1876