Kendall v. Aleshire
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Nuckolls county. Tried below before Hamer, J. The allegations of the petition are wholly insufficient to warrant the admission of any evidence tending to hold the bondsmen liable.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Nuckolls county. Tried below before Hamer, J. The allegations of the petition are wholly insufficient to warrant the admission of any evidence tending to hold the bondsmen liable. They can be held only for acts done virtute officii; not for those done colore officii. {Huffman v. Kopplekom, 8 Neb., 344; Ottenstein v. Alpaugh, 9 Id., 240; Scott v. State, 46 Ind., 203; Gerver v. Ackley, 37 "Wis., 44; State v. Conover, 28 N. J. L., 224; Seeley v. Birdsall, 15 Johns. [N. Y.], 267; Mandeville v. Guernsey, 51 Barb. [N. Y.], 99; Matter of Tilton, 19 Abb. Pr. [N. Y.],…
1Opinion of the Court
Cobb, Ch. J.
This action was brought in the district court of Nuckolls county by Eli Aleshire, plaintiff, against Thomas A. Meeker, Y. H. Kendall, L. W. Beale, A. C. McCorkle, L. B. Adams, and D. B. Ayres, defendants.
' The petition alleges the election of said Thomas A. Meeker to the office of sheriff of Nuckolls county, for the term of two years from the Thursday after the first Tuesday in January, 1886; that he gave a bond as such sheriff, with the other defendants as his sureties; took the oath of office and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such sheriff; that on the 12th day of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- McLean v. Mississippi Ex Rel. RoyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938
- Hawkins v. ThomasIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
- Drake v. KeelingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
- State Ex Rel. Penrod v. FrenchIndiana Supreme Court · 1943
- Felonicher v. StingleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.