Hill v. Rushing
Supreme Court of Alabama
Wext of .Error to the Circuit Court of Behtbn county. Action of covenant on an attachment bond conditioned to prosecute a certain suit, therein described to effect, and to pay all such costs and damages as the defendant in the attachment (t.he plaintiff in this suit,) should sustain by its being wrongfully or vexatiously sued out.
Read the full summary
Wext of .Error to the Circuit Court of Behtbn county. Action of covenant on an attachment bond conditioned to prosecute a certain suit, therein described to effect, and to pay all such costs and damages as the defendant in the attachment (t.he plaintiff in this suit,) should sustain by its being wrongfully or vexatiously sued out. The declaration sets out the bond and condition, and then avers that the attachment Was sued out without any good and sufficient reason, and for wrongful and vexatious purposes— and furthermore, that it was void for the want of a sufficient affidavit. It then…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
In the case of Herndon v. Forney, at the present term, we determined the principal question arising in this case, in favor of the plaintiff in error. The only differences between this case and that are that this is an action of covenant, and that here the breaches of the condition of the bond are assigned in the declaration.
1. We cannot perceive that any substantial reasons exist against allowing the action of covenant in such a case as this, when the plaintiff chooses to select it in preference to the action of debt. In either case, under our practice, he must assign breaches, and can only…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Dickson v. BachelderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Maury v. UnruhSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Tyson v. SandersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1871
- Douglas v. HennessySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1886
- Sherry v. PriestSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.