Legal Opinion

Persse v. Watrous

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided September 15, 1861PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Rebt upon a replevin bond. The declaration alleged that, the plaintiff attached certain goods as the property of one Balsius ; that the defendant Watrous sued out a writ of replevin, and under it took the goods; and that on suing out the writ the defendants entered into a recognisance, conditioned that Watrous “ should prosecute the writ of replevin before Freeman M. Brown Esq., justice of the peace fbr said county, at his office in Windsor Locks aforesaid, on the 22d day of…

Read the full summary

Rebt upon a replevin bond. The declaration alleged that, the plaintiff attached certain goods as the property of one Balsius ; that the defendant Watrous sued out a writ of replevin, and under it took the goods; and that on suing out the writ the defendants entered into a recognisance, conditioned that Watrous “ should prosecute the writ of replevin before Freeman M. Brown Esq., justice of the peace fbr said county, at his office in Windsor Locks aforesaid, on the 22d day of January, A. D. 1859, to full effect, and in case he should not make his plea good should deliver the goods to the…

1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.

The claim of the plaintiff in error that the bond described in the declaration was void on its face, is clearly unfounded.

It is urged in support of this claim, in the first place, that the condition of the bond, did not require the obligor to prosecute to effect generally, in whatever court the ultimate decision might be had, according to the form prescribed by the statute; but required him to prosecute specially, in a particular way, at a particular time and place, and before a particular magistrate, who had not final jurisdiction in the matter.

Where the language of the statute in giving a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Green v. BarkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
  2. Fleet v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Boom v. St. Paul Foundry & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
  2. Cox v. SargentColorado Court of Appeals · 1897
  3. Bradley v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1892
  4. Newell Universal Mill Co. v. . MuxlowNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  5. Fielding v. SilversteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API