McDonald v. Fett
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, County of Placer. Action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful seizure of personal property. On the trial, it appeared in evidence that an attachment had been issued against the plaintiff’s property, and that the defendant Fett had signed the attachment bond, but had no connection with the seizure of the plaintiff’s property by the officer, except as surety on the bond.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, County of Placer. Action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful seizure of personal property. On the trial, it appeared in evidence that an attachment had been issued against the plaintiff’s property, and that the defendant Fett had signed the attachment bond, but had no connection with the seizure of the plaintiff’s property by the officer, except as surety on the bond. It also appeared that the undertaking was void. The other defendant had not been served with process, and did not appear. The Court rendered judgment for the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Niles, J.:
By the act of signing an attachment bond, the surety does not become a participant in the seizure or detention of the attached property by the Sheriff, or liable as a trespasser for such acts. His liability arises under his contract merely, and is limited by its terms and conditions.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Elder v. KutnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- McGinley v. Maryland Casualty Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1929
- Summerland v. Automobile Funding Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1925
- Jordan v. HendersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1905