Hoadley v. Roush
West Virginia Supreme Court
This was an action on an attachment bond by George T. Hoadley, plaintiff, against David Roush and George Roush, (the latter was surety) in the circuit court of Mason county, determined in September, 1867. The declaration contained two counts; the first averring the suing out of an attachment and its being subsequently quashed, and in consequence of the wrongful suing, the plaintiff was damaged to the value of 856 dollars and 48 cents; the second averred special damages,…
Read the full summary
This was an action on an attachment bond by George T. Hoadley, plaintiff, against David Roush and George Roush, (the latter was surety) in the circuit court of Mason county, determined in September, 1867. The declaration contained two counts; the first averring the suing out of an attachment and its being subsequently quashed, and in consequence of the wrongful suing, the plaintiff was damaged to the value of 856 dollars and 48 cents; the second averred special damages, special injury, &c., by reason of the wrongful suing out of the attachment. The defendants tendered four pleas. No. 1 was…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
The first ground of error, assigned is in, overruling the demurrer to plea No. 2.
Plea No. 2 is a plea of non damnifieatus.
The condition, of the'bond on which the suit was founded was that, “if the said Roush shall pay all costs and damages which may be awarded against him, or sustained by any person by reason of his suing out said attachment, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force.”
This condition is the same thing as a condition to indemnify and save harmless, and in such case the plea of non damnifieatus is the recognized mode of defence. 1 Chitty Pl., p.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- First National Bank v. PritchardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lancaster v. WilsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876
- Lancaster v. WilsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876
- Lancaster v. WilsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876