Lowenstein v. McCadden
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Desha Circuit Court. John A. Williams, Judge. B. Lowenstein & Bro. sued H. F. Lennox upon a note, and ■caused an attachment to be levied upon certain property of the defendant in the hands of P. McCadden & Co., who retained it upon giving a bond conditioned that they would perform the judgment or have the property forthcoming. They also interpleaded for the property, but subsequently asked leave to dismiss the interpiea without prejudice, which was granted.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Desha Circuit Court. John A. Williams, Judge. B. Lowenstein & Bro. sued H. F. Lennox upon a note, and ■caused an attachment to be levied upon certain property of the defendant in the hands of P. McCadden & Co., who retained it upon giving a bond conditioned that they would perform the judgment or have the property forthcoming. They also interpleaded for the property, but subsequently asked leave to dismiss the interpiea without prejudice, which was granted. The attachment was sustained, judgment rendered for plaintiffs, and the sheriff ordered to retake the attached property. So…
1Per curiam
1. Attachment—Fo rthcoming bond, The bond executed by McCadden & Co. was not a statutory bond. It is in the form required by section 327 of Mansfield’s Digest, except that it is not conditioned that the defendant in the attachment suit shall perform the judgment of the court. If it be conceded that section 355 of the Digest authorizes summary judgment against a principal other than the defendant in the attachment suit, together with his sureties, still, the bond not having been executed in conformity to the statute, it cannot be enforced as a statutory bond.
% judgment on forthcoming…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Wilson v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Martin v. TennisonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Dillard v. NelsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Schneider v. CokerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Richardson v. HarrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896