Pierse v. Miles
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from Second District, Silver Bow Gounty. The undertaking in attachment need not be signed by the plaintiff. It is enough if signed by two sufficient sureties. See Statutes, Laws of Twelfth Session, p. 9; Wait’s Pr. vol. 2, p. 151. A defective undertaking may be amended. 12 Howard, 381; 10 Abb. Pr. 424; 6 Barb. 173; Drake on Attachment, secs. 146-148. The undertaking was defective in two particulars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Second District, Silver Bow Gounty. The undertaking in attachment need not be signed by the plaintiff. It is enough if signed by two sufficient sureties. See Statutes, Laws of Twelfth Session, p. 9; Wait’s Pr. vol. 2, p. 151. A defective undertaking may be amended. 12 Howard, 381; 10 Abb. Pr. 424; 6 Barb. 173; Drake on Attachment, secs. 146-148. The undertaking was defective in two particulars. It did not provide for payment of all damages defendant ‘1 may sustain by reason of the issuing out of the attachment,” as required by laws of twelfth session, p. 10, but only covered the…
1Opinion of the Court
Wade, O. J.
This is air appeal from an order dissolving an attachment, because of the insufficiency of the undertaking, and the refusal of the court to permit a new undertaking to be filed.
The undertaking given was not signed by the plaintiff, but was signed by two sureties on his behalf, and contained the following condition: “That if the-defendant recover judgment in said action, or if the court shall *551finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled to an attachment, the plaintiff will pay all costs that may be awarded to the said defendant, and all damages he may sustain by the wrongful…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lowry v. StoweSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
- Oliver v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1860
- Planters' & Merchants' Bank of Mobile v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
- Tevis v. HughesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- Scott v. MacySupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- King v. Pony Gold Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1900
- S. C. Herbst Importing Co. v. HoganMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Storz v. FinklesteinNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Black Hills Mercantile Co. v. GardinerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Russell v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1908
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.