J. H. Brent & Sureties v. Hohorst, Traufels & Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

J. H. Brent & Sureties v. Hohorst, Traufels & Co.

1 White & W. 146

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 15, 1878

DocketNo. 205, Op. Book No. 1, p. 647

StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 146 (J. H. Brent & Sureties v. Hohorst, Traufels & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. H. Brent & Sureties v. Hohorst, Traufels & Co., 1 White & W. 146 (Tex. Ct. App. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 848. Sureties on sheriff’s bond; liability of . By their undertaking and obligation, the sureties upon the sheriff’s bond were only liable for his acts done in his official capacity. When the parties, by their agreement, took the property attached out of the custody of the law and authorized the sheriff to sell it without reference to the legal proceedings pending, he simply became, in making the sale, their trustee and agent, as any other private individual would have been who might have been selected by them for that purpose. When he appropriated the funds arising from the sale, it was a breach of this private trust, and not an act of official misconduct for which he and his sureties could be held liable upon his official bond. There was no cause of action against the sureties.

Beversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 848. Sureties on sheriff’s bond; liability of . By their undertaking and obligation, the sureties upon the sheriff’s bond were only liable for his acts done in his official capacity. When the parties, by their agreement, took the property attached out of the custody of the law and authorized the sheriff to sell it without reference to the legal proceedings pending, he simply became, in making the sale, their trustee and agent, as any other private individual would have been who might have been selected by them for that purpose. When he appropriated the funds arising from the sale, it was a breach of this private trust, and not an act of official misconduct for which he and his sureties could be held liable upon his official bond. There was no cause of action against the sureties.

Beversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 White & W. 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-h-brent-sureties-v-hohorst-traufels-co-texapp-1878.