Woodburn v. Driver
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court; Allen Hughes, Judge; The sureties in a delivery bond in replevin are only liable for a return of the property if a return is adjudged, or for its value if a return can not be had, for damages for its retention, if awarded, and for costs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court; Allen Hughes, Judge; The sureties in a delivery bond in replevin are only liable for a return of the property if a return is adjudged, or for its value if a return can not be had, for damages for its retention, if awarded, and for costs. Kirby’s Digest, § 6870; 47 Ark. 316. The record failing to disclose the testimony from which this court may determine the facts upon which the decree is based, it will be presumed that the decree is correct and based upon sufficient testimony. 58 Ark. 135; 63 Ark. 513; 64 Ark. 609. The findings of a chancellor upon a…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCueeoch, J.
Appellees, Driver and McVeigh, instituted an action of replevin in the circuit court of Mississippi County against appellants Woodburn and Pope to recover possession of a lot of personal property (sawmill machinery) claimed under a chattel mortgage executed by the latter to the Bensack Dumber Company, and by that company transferred to appellees. An order of delivery was duly issued and served, and the defendants executed a retaining bond 'in statutory form with their co-appellants, Stewart, King, Crawford, Davis and Simpson, as sureties.
The defendants filed their answer and cross-complaint,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Simpson v. TalbotSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Carpenter v. EllenbrookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Cathey v. BowenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
3Cited by2 opinions
- Larson v. HansonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Thornbrough v. MaynerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963