Powell v. Sickinger
District Court, D. Alaska
This is an action brought by the United States marshal of this division upon an indemnity bond executed by the defendants in his favor.
Read the full summary
This is an action brought by the United States marshal of this division upon an indemnity bond executed by the defendants in his favor. The undertaking is in the usual form of a common-law bond, and in it is recited the facts that the marshal had attached certain goods and chattels under a writ issued out of the district court for the Third division of the district of Alaska, in the suit of Martin Sickinger v. John Schaeffer; that one Mary Schaeffer claimed the property attached; that the plaintiff Sickinger, notwithstanding said claim, required the marshal to retain in his custody under said…
1Opinion of the Court
MURANE, District Judge.
Counsel for the defendants at the argument contended that our statute contained no provision authorizing or permitting an indemnity bond to the United States marshal, and that the bond, having been given the *281marshal in order to get him to perform a plain duty, is void and without consideration. In other words, counsel for defendants contends that the marshal must act at his peril, and, if he make a mistake and return a writ unsatisfied when there is property subject to the writ, he will be liable for damages for a false return, and if he levy upon property which is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Chamberlain v. . BellerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Long v. NevilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- People v. CabannesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Paddock v. HumeOregon Supreme Court · 1876
- Ah Kle v. GregoryIdaho Supreme Court · 1893