Gibbs v. Bull
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on the case, brought against the defendant, late sheriff of the county of Washington, for not taking sufficient security, pursuant to the statute, in exe- . . » X /» v cuting a plaint m replevin, in favour of E. Rowley against t !*.•«» mi i ¶ . ’if the plaintiffs. Ihe declaration contained lour counts, to the first, second, and fourth of which there were separate demurrers.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case, brought against the defendant, late sheriff of the county of Washington, for not taking sufficient security, pursuant to the statute, in exe- . . » X /» v cuting a plaint m replevin, in favour of E. Rowley against t !*.•«» mi i ¶ . ’if the plaintiffs. Ihe declaration contained lour counts, to the first, second, and fourth of which there were separate demurrers. The first count alleged, that the defendant, as sheriff, replevied certain goods in possession of the plains tiffs, and caused them to be delivered to Eldridge Rowley, the plaintiff in replevin, “…
1Opinion of the CourtPlatt, J.
The objections taken on the demurrer to the first count, are, 1. That the facts averred by the plaintiffs, show no neglect of duty *438in the defendant, as sheriff; and that the bond set out in the count was taken conformably to the statute. 2. That the statute requires the sheriff to take sufficient security to prosecute the suit, &c. and to return the goods, “ if a return thereof should be adjudged whereas, the count charges the defendant for neglect of duty, in not taking sufficient security to prosecute, &c. “ with effect,” “ or to return the goods,” &c. iJ. That the count is defective in…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Cavender v. Heirs of SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- Merrick & Fenno v. HuttSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1854
- Pearce v. HumphreysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826
- Lauderdale Peerage ClaimNew York Supreme Court · 1885
- People ex rel. Fletcher v. LeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.