Litchfield v. McDonald
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in February, 1885, in the district court for Mower county against the principal and sureties on the official bond of the defendant McDonald as constable of the city of Austin.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in February, 1885, in the district court for Mower county against the principal and sureties on the official bond of the defendant McDonald as constable of the city of Austin. The complaint alleges that the wrong complained of as a breach of the condition of the bond was committed in November, 1878, and that this action is brought by leave granted by the district court on February 9, 1885. Plaintiff appeals from an order by Farmer, L, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. cited Wood v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 447, (494;) Lanier v. Irvine, 24 Minn. 116.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
This is an action upon a constable’s bond, which counsel on both sides treat as having been executed under Gen. St. 1878, c. 10, § 42, but which appears to us to have been executed under section 1, subchapter 3, of the charter of the city of Austin, found in chapter 1, Sp. Laws 1876. But, however this may be, we are clear that the bringing of an action upon it is controlled by sections 1, 2, and 3, chapter 78, Gen. St. 1878. The last clause of section 42, supra, is not at all inconsistent with these sections, and does not operate to supersede or dispense with them as respects actions upon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Davidson v. LampreySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Lanier v. IrvineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
3Cited by13 opinions
- Spokane County v. PrescottWashington Supreme Court · 1898
- Hantzch v. MassoltSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Weston v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Ganser v. GanserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- People v. California Safe Deposit & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.