Kimmel v. Kint
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THE case brought up, on error to the common pleas of Westmoreland county, was this. • Kimmel, the plaintiff, distrained the goods of Boyd for rent.
Read the full summary
THE case brought up, on error to the common pleas of Westmoreland county, was this. • Kimmel, the plaintiff, distrained the goods of Boyd for rent. Boyd replevied; executed the replevin bond on which suit is brought with Kint the defendant as his surety; and confessed judgment in the replevin suit for 200 dollars, but without judgment de retorno habendo or any rule in nature of a defeasance to give relief on the replevin bond ; and, in these circumstances, the question was, whether it could be forfeited. The court below held that it could not; and this was the point raised by the assignment…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, J.
The condition of a replevin bond is to prosecute with effect, and return the goods in case a return be awarded. But the *432plaintiff is not to prosecute with effect and return the goods too. The extent of the obligation is, that he shall succeed or comply with a judgment of re-delivery. The bond contains a condition, with alternate branches coupled disjunctively; and what is the effect rendering one of them impossible 1 The condition of every bond for the advantage of the obligor; and it is settled by Laughter’s case, Cro. Eliz. 398, that where…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gibbs v. BartlettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Vinyard v. BarnesIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Johnson v. GallegosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1900
- Carlon v. DixonOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Hutton v. HelmeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.