Dykstra v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

From the pleadings it appears that prior to the commencement of this action a final judgment was entered against the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company upon its bond, in accordance with the statute, which provides that judgment in replevin may be entered against both principal and surety, sec. 270.60, Stats. The theory upon which such judgments have been sustained is that the surety company, when it signs the replevin bond, in effect consents that if judgment is entered against the principal, it may also be entered against the surety. Pratt v. Donovan (1860), 10 Wis. *378, *382; Holden v. Curry…