Howe v. Taylor
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Columbia. The facts are stated in the opinion. There is nothing in the record from which it can be reasonably inferred that an official undertaking was ever executed by "Williams; that the sureties signed or justified to it, or that it was delivered, approved or filed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Columbia. The facts are stated in the opinion. There is nothing in the record from which it can be reasonably inferred that an official undertaking was ever executed by "Williams; that the sureties signed or justified to it, or that it was delivered, approved or filed. The record of the county court, offered by the respondent to sustain his allegation that such an undertaking was executed, reads as follows: “ C. H. Williams came into court and filed his bond, which was duly examined and approved by the court.” The record does not show that there were any sureties on the bond.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Watson, J.:
The respondent brought this suit to recover damages, occasioned by official dereliction, from the appellants as sureties on the official undertaking of O. H. Williams, formerly county clerk of Columbia county. The undertaking itself had been *291lost or stolen prior to the commencement of the suit, which this court has already held entitled respondent to seek his relief in equity. (Howe v. Taylor, 6 Or., 284.)
The only questions we have now to consider, relate to the competency and sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decree which the respondent recovered in the court…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Winn v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Howe v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court · 1877
- Hedrick v. HughesSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Edgar v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nelson v. StewartOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Williams v. GallickOregon Supreme Court · 1884
- Smith v. BayerOregon Supreme Court · 1905