Kimball v. Bleick

24 Or. 59
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 Or. 59 (Kimball v. Bleick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kimball v. Bleick, 24 Or. 59 (Or. 1893).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action against the principal and his sureties on a redelivery bond given in a replevin suit, pursuant to section 137 of Hill’s Code. The defendants Mever and Lynch interposed a demurrer to the complaint, which the court overruled, and, refusing to further plead, final judgment was rendered against them.

[60]*60The errors assigned are: (1) That the undertaking is void because it runs to the sheriff instead of the plaintiff, and therefore no action can be maintained upon it; and (2) that if it is good the complaint is defective, because the action is brought in the name of the wrong person. Undei¡ section 137 of Hill’s Code, an undertaking may be given to the sheriff, made payable to the plaintiff, who is the real party in interest and for whose benefit the undertaking is taken. The undertaking, then, being sufficiently in compliance with the statute, an action may be maintained upon it, and the plaintiff, being the real party in interest, is the proper party to prosecute.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Slinker
1912 OK 821 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Or. 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimball-v-bleick-or-1893.