Hill v. Sewell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL EROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT. Hon. Q-. ~W. McCoavn, Circuit Judge. In this case we take it that if the law would subrogate the negligent sheriff to the rights of the creditor, whose judgments he had paid, an assignment would be useless; and that an assignment could not impose any additional burden on the surety, which was not inherent in the nature of the situation.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT. Hon. Q-. ~W. McCoavn, Circuit Judge. In this case we take it that if the law would subrogate the negligent sheriff to the rights of the creditor, whose judgments he had paid, an assignment would be useless; and that an assignment could not impose any additional burden on the surety, which was not inherent in the nature of the situation. Otherwise his liability in the end might be made to depend on the terms of a contract between other parties, of the existence of which at the time he had no knowledge. But sureties cannot be concluded by any fabricated account…
1Opinion of the CourtGregg, J.
On the 27th day of March, 1861, the-appellant presented his bill, to the Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, for an injunction. He alleged, therein, that on the 2d day-of April, 1859, one Grinnett, as guardian, etc., recovered two judgments against A. L. Worthington, each for $1301 61, and on the 29th day of the next July, he caused executions to issue, which, on the 27th day of September following, were respectively duly levied, and the appellant then became security on Witherington’s delivery bonds; that the property thus released was not delivered, and the bonds were returned forfeited.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Johnson v. CastlemanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834
- Staton v. Commonwealth ex rel. GillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834