Laws

Thus where a magistrate Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:27:04 +0000
Melvin v Steamboat General Shields, 15 Ark 207; La Force v, Wear-Boogher Dry Goods Co (Tex Civ App, 1894), 29 S W Rep 75; Frankel v Stern, 44 Ca L 168 Bonds in Blan K A bond signed in blank is insufficient. Boyd v Boyd, 2 Nott M( S Car) 125. Thus where a magistrate on issuing an attachment took a bond signed in blank, which he afterwards filled up and lodged in the clerk's office, the clerk held it voi d Perminter v M'Daniel, i Hill ( S Car) 267 Surplusag e If a bond comply sub- stantially with the requirements of the statute, the addition of unneces- sary terms will not affect its validit Y Kahn v Herman, 3 Ga 266; Ranning v Reeves, 2 Tenn C H 263; Steamboat Napoleon v Etter, 6 Ark 103 out a seal it is held to be no bond at all ; * but where the bond is defective in being unsealed, the court should permit an amend- ment in that respect on motio N* C DAT e Although, unless required by statute, a failure to date the bond will not be fatal to its sufficiency, 3 it should, in general, contain recitals which unmistakably identify it with the other pro- ceedings in the suit.

Autor of the post: Undefined

5 e APPROVAL Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:12:09 +0000
4 d NAME OF THE COURT. The bond should name the court in which the suit is brought. 5 e APPROVAL OF THE BON d Where required by the statute, the clerk who issues the writ must approve the bond; 6 but he need not, in the absence of a statutory requirement to that effect, in- dorse upon the bond his approval in writing, 7 for by receiving and filing the bond he estops himself from afterwards denying that he approved it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 May be for More Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 13:54:25 +0000
8 1 Van Loon v Lyons, 61 N Y 22; Tiffany v Lord, 65 N Y 310; State v Thompson, 49 Mo iSS; State v Cham- ber-Jin, 54 Mo 338 But a bond without seals cannot be amended by the principal alone by affixing seal S He cannot affix that of the surety, as that would not be the surety's seal; nor can he affix his own, as that would be useles S Hunter v Ladd, 2 111 551 See also article AMENDMENTS, Vo L I, p 683 In Ohio and Texas want of seals to an attachment bond has been held not sufficient to warrant dissolving the at- tachment. McLain v Simington, 37 Ohio St 484; Gasquet v Collins, 57 Tex 340; Bernhard v, De Forrest, 36 Tex 518, overruling Read v Levy, 30 Tex 738, and Hart v Kanady, 33 Tex 720 For it takes effect from the date of its filin g Claflin v Hoover, 20 Mo App 314 4 Hann v Ruse, 35 La An N 725 Thus, where a bond dated Ja N 4, 1836, recited the attachment as returnable "on the third Monday of Ja N, instant," while the writ was dated Ja N 4, 1838, the bond was held defect- iv e Lowry v Stowe, 7 Port (Ala) 5 Thus a bond which, in reciting the attachment, mentions no court or term of court, but which merely de- scribes it as "sued out, returnable" on a certain day of a certain month, is fatally defective, Lawrence v Yeat- man, 3 111 15; and where the bond re- cited the time when the court was to be held, but failed to designate it as the next county court, it was held de- fective, but amendabl e Planters', etc, Bank v Andrews, 8 Port (Ala) 404 A mistake in the bond in the state- ment of the court in which the suit is brought has been held fatal, Bonner v Brown, 10 La An N 334; but a mis- recital as to the term of the court to which the attachment is returnable does not vitiate it, Houston v Belcher, 12 Smed M (Mis S) 514; and a mis- take fn the recital of the bond as to the county in which the suit is pend- ing has been held curable, Holmes v Budd, ii Iowa 186 6 Blaney v Findley, 2 Blackf (Ind) 338; Yost v Ginley, 2 Le g Re C (Pa) 35 I 7 West v Woolfolk, 21 Fla 189; Griffith v Robinson, 19 Tex 21^9 8 Pearson v Gayle,'ii Ala 278; Dothard v Sheid, 69 Ala 135; Hyde v Adams, 80 Ala in; Whitman Ag- ricultural Asso C v National Railway Asso C, 45 Mo App 90 The fact of the issue of the writ by the clerk is evidence of his approval of the bond, Levi v Darling, 28 Ind 497; and consequently a plea that "it does not appear that bond filed in the suit was ever duly approved by the clerk before the issuance of the writ," is frivolous, Mandel v Peet, 18 Ark 236 And see Howard v Oppen- heimer, 25 Md 350, where a memo- randum of acceptance on the bond, though not signed by the clerk, and 5 Amount of Indemnit Y The amoxmt of the bond required is always fixed by statute, and is in most cases double the amount of the claim for which the attachment is sought. 1 May be for More than the Statutory Amount It is no objection to the bond that it is for more than the amount required by la W 2 the recital in the writ issued and signed by him that the bond was pro- duced and filed in the court at the time the account was filed and the affi- davit made, were held sufficient evi- dence of his approval of the bon d Need not be Approved by Magistrate Issuing Proces S A bond for an attach- ment need not be signed in the pres- ence of or approved by the magistrate who issues the Attachment If duly executed, although attested by an- other magistrate, it will be sufficient if the magistrate who issues the proc- ess certifies therein that bond and security were given in pursuance of the statut e Brown v Clayton, 12 Ga 564; Dobbs v Murray County Justices, 17 Ga 624; Smith v Joiner, 27 Ga 65 But see Home v Mitchell, 7 Bush (Ky) 132; Hucheson v Ross, 2 A K Marsh (Ky) 350; Anderson v, Sutton, 2 Duv (Ky)488 1 Must be Sufficient in Amount Yale v Cole, 31 La An N 687; Allen v Champlin, 32 La An N 511 Unless amendable a bond for less than the statutory amount is fatally defectiv e Williams v Barrow, 3 La 57; Martin v Thompson, 3 Bibb(Ky) 252; Samuel v Brite, 3 A K Marsh (Ky) 317; Marnine v Murphy, 8 Ind 272; Hamble v Owen, 20 Iowa 70 And this defect cannot be cured by filing an additional bond sufficient to cover the shortag e Graham v Burck- halter, 2 La An N 415 Thus where the statute requires the amount of the bond to be double the value of the property which the sheriff may attach, or three times the amount sworn to by the plaintiff, it is not sufficient for it to be in double the amount sworn to or double the actual value of the property attache d Churchill v Fulliam, 8 Iowa 45; Van Winkle v Stevens, 9 Iowa 264 But where, under a statute requir- ing the plaintiff to give a bond in a sum equal to double the amount sworn to be due, the plaintiff swore that there was due to him from the defend- ant $4592, besides interest, it was held that a bond for double the $4592 was sufficient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Gerson, 24 Fed Rep 257 Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 13:35:59 +0000
Saulter v Butler, 10 Ga 510 And see Whitlock v Kirk- wood, 16 Ark 488 But when a specified amount of in- terest is claimed by the affidavit in at- tachment in addition to the debt, the bond must be given in double the amount of the sum demande d Gal- lagher v Cogswell, ii Fla 127 And see Pope v Hunter, 13 La 306; Jack- son v Warwick, 17 La 436; Planters' Bank v Byrne, 3 La An N 687; Gra- ham v Burckhalter, 2 La An N 415; U S v Murdock, 18 La An N 305; Fellows -v Dickens, 5 La An N 131; Byne v, Byne, I Rich ( S Car) 438; Brown v Whiteford, 4 Rich ( S Car) An attachment bond is not insuffi- cient in respect to the requirement that it shall be in " double the debt or sum demanded " because the amount demanded does not appear in the bond, if it is in fact in double the amount, and so shown by the affidavit. Strong v Lake Weir, etc, Asso C, 25 Fla 765, distinguishing Work v Titus, 12 Fla 628 De Minimis non Curat Le X In Bodet v Nibourel, 25 La An N 499, where $1706 was claimed to be due, and the attachment bond was for less than one dollar below the amount required, the Supreme Court declined to notice the defe Ct 2 Bourne v Hocker, nB Mo N (Ky)2?; Fellows v Miller, 8 Blackf (Ind) 231; Schockley v Davis, 17 Ga 175; Tanner, etc, Engine Co v Hall, 22 Fla 391 But it must not be for less than the statutory Amount East West Tex- as Lumber Co v Warren, 78 Tex 318; Griffith -v Milwaukee Harvester Co (Iowa, 1894), 61 N W Rep 243 And where the statute required a bond to pay all damage, etc, without limitation as to the amount, a bond wherein the liability was limited to a specified sum was held insufficient, Hisle-r v Carr, 33Cal641 Court May Increase Penalty of Bon d Where an undertaking is ordered in an insufficient sum the court may in- crease the penalt Y Whitney v Deniston, 2 Thom P C ( N Y) 471, Misrecital of Amount A misrecital in the bond of the amount sworn to does not vitiate the bon d 1 Substituted Bond S While no amendment of an insufficient bond is permitted, except as conferred by statute, 3 wherever the right to amend is given, it is the duty of the court to permit the plaintiff to substitute a proper bon d 3 6 Parties to the Bond a, THE PRINCIPAL OR OBLIGORThe attachment bond must be executed by the party or one of the parties prescribed in the statut e 4 Bumberger z'.Gerson, 24 Fed Rep 257 And the defendant may apply for an order to increase the amount of the plaintiff's undertaking, though he has himself given bond to discharge the attachment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Lehman v Broussard, 45 Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 13:16:13 +0000
Dusseldorf v Redlich, 16 Hun ( N Y) 624 And see Riggs v Cleveland RCo, 21 N Y Wkl Y Di g 45- 1 Lawrence v Featherston, 10 Smed M (Mis S) 345 Penalty of Bond should Equal Amount Claime d Where the penalty of the bond is discretionary with the clerk, he should require an undertaking at least equal to the amount stated in the affidavit. Willman -v Freidman (Idaho, 1893), 35 Pac Rep 37 Amount Left Blan K A bond for no specified amount is fatal to the at- tachment. Lehman v Broussard, 45 La An N 346; Louisville, etc, RCo v Lake, 5 Ind App 450 2 Roulhac v Rigby, 7 Fla 336; Tanner, etc, Engine Co v Hall, 22 Fla 391 See article AMENDMENTS, Vo L I, p 685 3 Cheever v Lane, 9 Iowa 193; Jackson v Stanley, 2 Ala 326; Conk- lin v Harris, 5 Ala 213; Lowry v Stowe, 7 Port (Ala) 483; Planters', etc, Bank v Andrews, 8 Port (Ala), 404; Lowe v Derrick, 9 Port (Ala) 415; Scott v Macy, 3 Ala 250; Lea v Vail, 3 111 473; Jasper County v Che- nault, 38 Mo 357;Tevis W Hughes, 10 Mo 380; Wood v Squires, 28 Mo 528; Beardslee v Morgan, 29 Mo 471; Henderson v Drace, 30 Mo 358; Mc- Donald v Fist, 53 Mo 343; Oliver v Wilson, 29 Ga 642; Irvin v Howard, 37 Ga 18; Pierse v Miles, 5 Mont And where a sufficient bond is sub- stituted it is to be treated in all re- spects as if filed at the beginning of the actio N Branch of State Hank i.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Kyle v Connelly, 3 Leigh Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:59:33 +0000
Morris, 13 Iowa 136 And see Hyde v Adams, 80 Ala in; Ex p Damon Ala, 1894), 15 So Rep 862 4 Thus where the statute required the plaintiff to give bond before the issuing of the writ of attachment, it was held that the bond could be exe- cuted by no one els e Myers v Lewis, I McMul L ( S Car) 54; Booker v Smit H 38 S Car 228; Elliott v Plu- kart, 6 Pa Co Ct Rep 151; Mantz v Hendley, 2 He N M ( Va) 308 And it must be signed by all of the plaintiff S Guckenheimer v Dryfus ( S Car, 1895), 21 S E Rep 331 And under a statute requiring that the bond be executed by ' 'the party for whom the attachment issued," in a suit by a ^mercantile firm, a bond re- citing that one of the partners had sued out the attachment, and that he would pay, etc, recovered against him, was held not in substantial com- pliance with the statut e Jones v Anderson, 7 Leigh ( Va) 308 But under a statute requiring "a bond on the part of the plaintiff with sufficient sureties," a bond executed by two persons other than the plain- tiff has been held sufficient, the court holding it unnecessary that there should be in the bond a principal obligor, to whom the other obligors should stand in the relation of sure- tie S Howard v Manderfield, 31 Min N 337 See also Black Hills Mer- cantile Co v Gardiner ( S Dak, 1894), 58 N W Rep 557 And under a statute declaring that "the plaintiff must file," it was held that the bond need not be signed by the plaintiff Pitkins v Boyd, 4 Greene (Iowa) 255 See also Grand Gulf R, etc, Co v Conger, 9 Smed M (Mis S) 505; Murray v Cone, 8 Port. (Ala) 250 In Adams v Kellogg, 63 Mich 105, the failure of the plaintiff to execute the statutory bond with his sureties, he being named in the commencement as principal, was held not to be a jurisdictional defe Ct Partner S In order to sue out an at- Bond by Agent or Attorne Y In most of the states considerable lati- tude is allowed in this respect, the statute providing that the bond may be executed by the plaintiff, his agent, attorney, or some other person for hi M 1 tachment in behalf of a firm, one part- ner has the right to execute a bond in the name of the fir M Dow v Smith, 8 Ga 551; Hall v Kintz, 2 Pa DiSt Rep 615 Thus, under a statute requiring the bond to be executed by " the party for whom the attachment issued," it was held that a bond issued by one member of a firm was sufficient where it appeared in the instrument that he executed it for the firm, and sufficient- ly described the suit as brought by them and for their benefit. Kyle v Connelly, 3 Leigh ( Va)7i g Again in Jeffreys -v Coleman, 20 Fla 536, it was held that a bond given by a copartnership firm, but signed and sealed by one of the members of the firm in the copartnership name, the signing having been authorized or rati- fied by the other by parol, was a sufficient bond of both partie S Further, in Ross v Steen, 20 Fla 443, it was held that an attachment bond signed in the name of a partner- ship bound all parties who had author- ized or subsequently ratified the signing, either by deed or by parol, and was goo d But where the bond set forth that the attachment had been sued out by one member of a firm, and was condi- tioned that if he should, etc, he would pay all costs and damages recovered against him for suing out the writ, it was decided that the bond was not in substantial conformity with the stat- ute, and the attachment was quashe d Jones v Anderson, 7 Leigh ( Va) 308 A bond signed by both principal and sureties in their partnership name is not prima facie bad, Danforth v Car- ter, i Iowa 546; Churchill v Fulliam, 8 Iowa 45; and one signed by plaintiff as principal and a firm or partnership as surety has been held prima facie good, Lessier v Crowley, 17 Neb 209; and, if bad, amendable, Boisseau v Kahn, 62 Mis S 757 Corporations, Privat e A bond given by a private corporation as plaintiff in an attachment suit must be under the corporate seal of the compan Y Tan- ner, et C Engine Co v Hall, 22 Fla 391 And see Augusta Bank v Con- rey, 28 Mis S 667 Corporations, Publi C A state suing in its own courts is not required to give abond in attachment; and if such bond is given it binds none of the parties to it, Renkert v Elliott, II Lea (Tenn) 235; Drake on Attachments, 114 c; and a bond given by a city in contravention of the statute is void, Morgan v Menzies, 60Cal341 But in State v Fortinberry, 54 Mis S 316, it was held that a bond given by the board of supervisors was binding on the sureties, but not upon the count Y 1 See statutes at commencement of this sectio N Bond by Agent, etc Under a statute providing that "the plaintiff or some person in his behalf" shall execute the bond, a bond executed by an agent, with sufficient sureties, binding him- self personally, has been held suffi- cient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Conklin v Goldsmith, 5 Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:41:42 +0000
Stewart v Katz, 30 Md 334 And an attachment bond executed by the agent of the plaintiff in his char- acter as agent, but professing to bind himself and not his principal, was held to be substantially in compliance with a statute requiring " the plaintiff by himself or by his agent or attorney" to give bon d Conklin v Goldsmith, 5 Fla 280 See also Simpson v Knight, 12 Fla 144; Bryant S Knight, 12 Fla 165; Dillon v Watkins, 2 Spear ( S Car) 445; Gable v Brooks, 48 Md 108 And where the bond was not in the name of the plaintiff, but was the personal obligation of the agent, no power under seal need be shown authorizing its execution by the Agent Walbridge v Spalding, i Doug L (Mich) 451 But where, under a statute requir- ing the execution of the bond by the plaintiff himself or "by his agent or attorney," the party suing out the at- tachment described himself in the affidavit as agent of the plaintiffs, but failed to so describe himself in exe- cuting the bond, which purported "to have been given by him in person," omitting any statement to the effect that he was the agent or attorney of the plaintiffs, the bond was held fatally defective, because it did not appear that it was executed by the plaintiffs, their agent, or attorne Y Work v b, THE SECURITY OR SURETIE S The number and qualifica- tions of the sureties to an attachment bond are in most cases definitely fixed by the statute granting the remedy; and where so fixed any substantial deviation from the statute will ordinarily be fatal to the suit. 1 Titus, 12 Fla 628 See also Powell v Roderick, I Pa DiSt Rep 120; Elliott v Plukart, 6 Pa Co Ct Rep 151, where a bond signed by one describing himself as "agent and attorney in fact " was held not in substantial com- pliance with a statute requiring the bond to be executed by "the plaintiff or some one on his behalf" But see Frost v Cook, 7 How (Mis S) 357; Page v Ford, 2 Smed M (Mis S) 266; Clanton v Laird, 12 Smed M (Mis S) 568 Authority of Agent Presume d The authority of the agent to act for the plaintiff will be presume d Jackson v Stanley, 2 Ala 326; Goddard v Cunningham, 6 Iowa 400; McDonald v Fist, 53 Mo 343; Lindner v Aaron, 5 How (Mis S) 581; Spear v King, 6 Smed M (Mis S) 276; Wright v Smith, 19 Tex 297; Messner v Lewis, 20 Tex 221 But see Harrisburg tJoot, etc, Co -v Johnson, 3 Pa DiSt Rep 433 No Power of Attorney under Seal Need be Shown, Walbridge v Spalding, i Doug L (Mich) 451; Wood v Squires, 28 Mo 528; for the authority of the agent forms no part of the bond, and if questioned, must be questioned by a plea in Abatement Alford v John- son, 9 Port (Ala) 320; Messner v Hutchins, 17 Tex 597; Tingle v Brison, 14 W Va 295 In Florida agents require authority under seal to execute the bond, Forbes v Porter, 25 Fla 362; but a bond executed by an agent, binding himself and not his principal, is suffi- cient. Conklin v Goldsmith, 5 Fla 280 In Georgia it has been held that the signing of the plaintiff's name to the bond by his agent or attorney is not sufficient error to warrant a dismissal of the action where the plaintiff made the affidavit for the Attachment Authanissen v Brunswick, etc, Co, 92 Ga 409 Eatification by Plaintiff If the bond be executed in the name of the plaintiff by one without authority, a ratification of the act by the plaintiff subsequent to the issuance of the writ will not avai L Grove v, Harvey, 12 Ro b ( La) 221; Kellogg v Miller, 6 Ark 469 But it seems that a ratification before the issuance of the writ would be goo d Kellogg v Miller, 6 Ark 469 And see Dove v Martin, 23 Mis S sCS; Mandel v Peet, 18 Ark 237; Augusta Bank v Conrey, 28 Mis S 667; Peiser v Cushman, 13 Tex 390 "Attorney" Includes Attorney at La W The word "attorney" in the statute includes attorney at law as well as at- torney in fact, Trowbridge v Weir, 6 La An N 706; but does not include a nonresident attorney, who is not li- censed to practise in the courts of the state, Wetmore v Daffin, 5 La An N 496 Thus in Marshall v Ravisies, 22 Fla 583, it was held that an agent of the plaintiff signing an attachment bond as principal could not sign it as surety, where the statute required that there should be two sureties, the court holding that two sureties meant a guaranty of two persons other than the principa L And a bond executed by A on be- half of B, and by A and C, sureties; signed and sealed B (seal), A (seal), and C (seal), was held void, since it was not the bond of B nor of A, for A is one of the sureties, and a party cannot be both principal and suret Y Wanamaker v Bowes, 36 Md 42 Execution not Affected by Defective Bon d But it was held in Bryant v Hendee, 40 Mich 543, that where an officer holds property under an execu- tion upon a judgment in attachment proceedings, an action of replevin cannot be maintained against him on account of a defect in the attachment bond, the same having been executed by only one suret Y Competency of the Securit Y The dis- cretion of the judge or commissioner as to the competency of the security is absolute and definit e Learned v Duval, 3 John S Ca S ( N Y) 141 Where under the provisions of the statute an attorney at law was not a_ proper surety, and the clerk, in viola- C THE OBLIGE e With the exception of those states in which the attachment bond is drawn payable to the state or common- wealth for the use of the party injured, 1 the obligee named in the attachment bond should be the Defendant 8 tion of the statute, approved a bond with an attorney as surety, the court denied a motion to discharge the at- tachment for the reason that " no un- dertaking has been filed as required by la W" Tessier v Crowley, 17 Neb 209; Rogers v Burbridge, 5 Tex Civ App 67 And see Stewart v Katz, 30 Md 334, where the court held that the sufficiency of the sureties in the bond was a matter left entirely to the judgment of the clerk, but not so the legal validity of the bond itself Thus a bond executed by the plaintiff and two sureties in double the amount of the amount sued for was held " good and sufficient" if approved by the clerk, although each of the sureties was not good for more than one-half the penalty of the bond, if both to- gether were worth twice the amount sued foRMayz Gamble, 14 Fla 467 But the security of the bond must be good for its whole Amount Lockett v de Neufville, 55 Ga 454 Objection on Appea L An objection on the ground of insufficiency of the sureties is not available when made for the first time on appea L Myers v Cole, 32 Ka N 138 New Security in Appellate Court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Baars v Gordon, 21 Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:31:14 +0000
In Durham v Lisso, 32 La An N 415, it was held, on appeal from an order dissolving an attachment on account of the insufficiency of the security, that the Supreme Court had no power to order the substitution of a sufficient suret Y Number of Suretie S If the statute fails to state the number of sureties required and simply uses the plural " with sureties," a bond executed with one surety, whose pecuniary responsi- bility satisfies the requirements of the law, is held sufficient. Elliott v Stevens, 10 Iowa 418 And see Ward v Whitney, 8 N Y 442; Atkinson v Foxworth, 53 Mis S 741; Church v Drummond, 7 Ind 17 But see Spet- tigue v Hutton, 9 Pa Co Ct Rep 156 Where the signature of the two se- curities is joint and not joint and several it has been held sufficient. Baars v Gordon, 21 Fla 25; Donnelly v Elser, 69 Tex 282; Claflin v Hoover, 20 Mo App 314; Cunning- ham v Lamar, 51 Ga 574; Thatcher v Goff, 13 La 360; Dow v Smith, 8 Ga 551; Jeffreys v Coleman, 20 Fla 536; Gray v Steedman, 63 Tex 95; Munzesheimer v Heinze, 74 Tex 254 Allegation of Residenc e Unless re- quired to do so by statute the bond need not state that the sureties are residents of the stat e Jackson v Stanley, 2 Ala 326 In Louisiana an attachment will be dissolved if one of the sureties on the bond is not a resident of the parish as required by la W McCook z/ Willis, 28 La An N 448 In Missouri sureties must be resident householders in the count Y Mo Rev Stat1889, 527 In Wisconsin the surety must be a resident and householder or freeholder within the stat e Sa N BeR Annot Stat1889, 2732 Attorney at Law not Practisin g Un- der a statute forbidding attorneys to become sureties an attorney who has not practised for one year and is en- gaged in other business may become a suret Y Evans v Harris, 47 N Y SupeRCt 366 1 In Maryland (Code 1888, art.

Autor of the post: Undefined

An attachment bond made payable Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:17:05 +0000
9, 38). Missouri (Rev Stat1889, 527), and New Mexico (Ge N Laws 1882, C 31, 4) the bond should be drawn to the stat e See also Elliott v Plukart, 6 Pa Co Ct Rep 151 In Hall v Kintz, 2 Pa DiSt Rep 615, it was held that the names of the parties for whose use the bond is given need not be inserted, nor is it neces- sary to insert the words "for the use of the parties interested " in the oblig- atory part of the bon d To Clerk of Court. An attachment bond made payable "unto J T C, clerk of the civil District Court, and his successors in office," is a bond in favor of the clerk of that court as required by a statute, although the person named had ceased to be clerk and had been succeeded by anotheRScooler v Alstrom, 38 La An N 907 2 It is no objection to an undertak- ing in attachment that it is made pay- able to the people of the state instead of to the defendant in the suit, as the 7 Action on Bon d As to actions on attachment bonds, see article BOND S Iv THE WRIT 1 Formalities and Requisites A FORMAL- ITIES In Name of stat e The writ of attachment should run in the name of the government or stat e 1 Dat e It must show the date of its issuanc e 3 Officer issuing it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

De Caussey v Baily, 57 Post Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 11:59:07 +0000
It should also show upon its face by what officer it was issue d 3 latter can sue thereon in his own na Me Taaffe v Rosenthal, 7Cal515 But where an attachment was sued out against a member of a firm for a part- nership indebtedness, a bond executed to the firm was held insufficient. Cour- rier v Cleghorn, 3 Greene (Iowa) 523 But where the suit was against A,B and C, composing the firm of A Co, a bond payable to A Co was held sufficient. De Caussey v Baily, 57 Tex 665 And see Voorheis v Eiting (Ky, 1893), 22 S W Rep 80 Several Defendant S The bond should be made payable to all the defendants jointly, although the writ may be levied on the separate property of any one of the M Hadley v Bryars, 58 Ala 139 Thus, where an attachment bond, made payable to the individual members of a firm in an attachment suit against the firm, failed to recite that the obligees composed the firm, it was held voi d Birdsong v Mc- Laren, 8 Ga 521 But see Gray v Steedman, 63 Tex 95, where the con- trary view was hel d Attachment against One only of Sev- eral Defendant S Where the attach- ment is sought against the property of one defendant only, the bond should be made payable to him alon e Bran- shaw v Tinsley, 4 Tex Civ App 131 1 In Kentucky it was early held to be a constitutional requisition which could not be dispensed with that the attachment should run in the name of the commonwealt H McDaniel v Sap- pington, Har d (Ky) to O Writ Indorsed on Summon S Where a summons running in the name of "the Commonwealth of Kentucky" was indorsed with an order of attach- ment complete in all respects but for the omission of the words " the Com- monwealth of Kentucky," it was held that the summons and order were to be considered together as forming a valid writ, especially as such had been the practice for a very long ti Me Northern Bank v Hunt, 93 Ky 67 But where the writ did not run in the name of the commonwealth and there was nothing in the record to show it was indorsed on the summons, it was held voi d Yeager v Groves, 78 Ky 278 In West Virginia an order of attach- ment issued under the Act of 1867, C 118, may run in any form or style pre- scribed by statut e It is not a writ in the sense of art.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268

mail to: pirton@mail.ru