Maddox v. Rader
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from, Fourth Judicial District, Meagher County. On the trial of this action defendants admitted the material allegations of the complaint and voluntarily assumed the burden of proof. . The testimony of defendants was excluded on motion, and judgment was rendered for plaintiffs by Bach, J. The provision of the bond under which the sheriff’s bondsmen must be made liable, if at all, reads as follows: “If the said William Rader shall well, truly, and faithfully perform…
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Fourth Judicial District, Meagher County. On the trial of this action defendants admitted the material allegations of the complaint and voluntarily assumed the burden of proof. . The testimony of defendants was excluded on motion, and judgment was rendered for plaintiffs by Bach, J. The provision of the bond under which the sheriff’s bondsmen must be made liable, if at all, reads as follows: “If the said William Rader shall well, truly, and faithfully perform all official duties now required of him by law, and shall truly and faithfully execute and perform all the duties of such…
1Opinion of the CourtBlake, C. J.
This action was commenced by the respondent Maddox, to recover from the appellants, the sheriff of Meagher County and the sureties upon his official bond, the sum of $5,314.69 and interest. Gaddis was allowed to intervene by the order of the court below, and demanded judgment against the appellants for the sum of $5,000. It appears from the transcript that the appellants voluntarily assumed the “burden of proof, and admitted all the material allegations of the complaint” of Maddox and Gaddis. The following statement of the facts, which are contained in the pleadings, defines clearly the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Nolan v. JacksonIllinois Supreme Court · 1855
- Wright v. DailyTexas Supreme Court · 1863
- Miller v. EdmonstonIndiana Supreme Court · 1846
- Commissioners of Jefferson County v. LinebergerMontana Supreme Court · 1878
- Harper v. HarveyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1871
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Faricy v. St. Paul Investment & Savings SocietySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Cornhusker Electric Co. v. City of FairburyNebraska Supreme Court · 1936
- Maddox v. TeagueMontana Supreme Court · 1896
- In re GeiserDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1904
- Holliday v. McGrawNew York Supreme Court · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.