Follett v. Shumway
Supreme Court of Vermont
Case for the default of the defendant as an officer in not taking a sufficient replevin bond. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court at the March term, 1895, Windham county, Rowell, J., presiding. Upon the facts found the court gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The defendant was negligent in not taking a sufficient bond. He cannot claim subrogation for that he has not come with clean hands himself.
Read the full summary
Case for the default of the defendant as an officer in not taking a sufficient replevin bond. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court at the March term, 1895, Windham county, Rowell, J., presiding. Upon the facts found the court gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The defendant was negligent in not taking a sufficient bond. He cannot claim subrogation for that he has not come with clean hands himself. Railroad .Co. v. Soutter, et al., 13 Wall 517; German Bank v. United States, 148 U. S., 573; Conner v. Welch, 51 Wis. 431; Kelley v. Kelley, 54 Mich. 47; Dwight v. Lumber…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
The defendant, an officer, served a replevin writ in favor of one French against the plaintiff, and took a bond signed by said French and one Earl as surety, conditioned as provided by the statute, R. L., s. 1219. French was cast in the suit. The bond was never good and sufficient. The plaintiff seeks in this suit to recover damages for the defendant’s default in not taking a good and sufficient bond. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of the bond to secure for him any liability he might be under to the plaintiff in respect to it. Evarts v. Hyde, 51 Vt. 183, and cases therein cited.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Evarts v. HydeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878