Legal Opinion

Sopris v. Lilley

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided February 15, 1875PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to District Court, Arapahoe County. The condition of the bond on which the action was brought was as follows: “Whereas, the above bounden John G. Lilley, plaintiff, has on this day sued out a writ of replevin out of the district court of Colorado Territory, in and for the county of Arapahoe, against one Alonzo Booth, to recover the possession of one gray horse branded with the letters U. S. on the left shoulder, and I. C. on the left hip, about nine years old, and one…

Read the full summary

Error to District Court, Arapahoe County. The condition of the bond on which the action was brought was as follows: “Whereas, the above bounden John G. Lilley, plaintiff, has on this day sued out a writ of replevin out of the district court of Colorado Territory, in and for the county of Arapahoe, against one Alonzo Booth, to recover the possession of one gray horse branded with the letters U. S. on the left shoulder, and I. C. on the left hip, about nine years old, and one gray horse with back a little swayed, about ten years old, and one Jackson wagon, which said property is of the value of…

1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.

The bond, which was the foundation of the plaintiff’s action, contained four conditions, to-wit: 1. That the principal should prosecute his suit to effect and without delay. 2. That he should return the property, if return should be awarded. 3. That he should pay all damages which might be adjudged against him for the detention thereof. 4. That he should save and keep harmless the sheriff.

The declaration assigned breaches upon the first and second conditions.

The condition to make return of the property is performed if the plaintiff in replevin restore the goods seasonably after return…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bein v. HeathSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
  2. Day v. Putnam InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Quinlan v. JonesWyoming Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. WattsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API