Shugart v. Sorrells
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Dallas Chancery Court; James M. Barber, Chancellor; The bond was executed for the benefit of the constable alone. It was his duty to take proper care of the property under the attachment lien. Kirby’s. Digest, § 348; 33 Ark. 70. The sureties were not liable for any lass sustained by Sorrells, the judgment plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas Chancery Court; James M. Barber, Chancellor; The bond was executed for the benefit of the constable alone. It was his duty to take proper care of the property under the attachment lien. Kirby’s. Digest, § 348; 33 Ark. 70. The sureties were not liable for any lass sustained by Sorrells, the judgment plaintiff. He was not .a party and it was error to enter judgment for any loss sustained by him. 34 Ark. 542. Any loss occurring was due to the negligence of the constable in not oaring properly for the property on which there was a lien. Kirby’s Digest, § 360; 63 Ark. 151. The…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCULLOCH, C. J.
This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court of Dallas County summarily awarding damages on an injunction bond. The facts are' that Gr. L. Sorrells obtained judgment against J. S. Drake before a justice of the peace for recovery of the sum of $290.52, with interest and cost of suit, and the attachment in the cause was sustained and the attached property ordered to be sold. W. T. Sorrells, the constable of the township, had levied the attachment on personal property consisting of two mules and a wagon, and for convenience left the property with Drake, the defendant in the action.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Andrews v. . the Glenville Woolen Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Vicksburg, Shreveport & Texas Railroad v. BarksdaleSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1860
- Johnson v. GillenwaterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905