Packer v. Phillips

Appellate Court of Illinois

Packer v. Phillips

33 Ill. App. 120, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 466

DecidedMay 8, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Ill. App. 120 (Packer v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Packer v. Phillips, 33 Ill. App. 120, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 466 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, J.

This is an action upon an attachment bond, purporting to be executed by appellants as sureties for Mary J. Lewis, in an action by her against the appellee. The bond recites that Lewis had prayed an attachment, that the court ordered it, and that it was about to be issued, but there was no proof that it ever was .issued, or that it could have done any harm to the appellee if it had been.

She recovered in this case what appeared to be the general costs of the action that Lewis prosecuted against her unsuccessfully. As the attachment prayed was not an original one, hut in aid of a pending action, those costs were not covered by the bond. Wallis v. Keeney, 88 Ill. 370, and Jevne v. Osgood, 57 Ill. 340, are in principle the same as this case. If the appellee had sustained any damage covered by the bond, she might have recovered, without having her damages first assessed in an action for wrongfully suing out the attachment, notwithstanding the words of the condition are, to pay such damages as shall be awarded in any suit which may hereafter be bronghtfor wrongfully suing out the attachment. Churchill v. Abraham, 22 Ill. 455.

There being no proof to warrant the finding, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Gary, J.

This is an action upon an attachment bond, purporting to be executed by appellants as sureties for Mary J. Lewis, in an action by her against the appellee. The bond recites that Lewis had prayed an attachment, that the court ordered it, and that it was about to be issued, but there was no proof that it ever was .issued, or that it could have done any harm to the appellee if it had been.

She recovered in this case what appeared to be the general costs of the action that Lewis prosecuted against her unsuccessfully. As the attachment prayed was not an original one, hut in aid of a pending action, those costs were not covered by the bond. Wallis v. Keeney, 88 Ill. 370, and Jevne v. Osgood, 57 Ill. 340, are in principle the same as this case. If the appellee had sustained any damage covered by the bond, she might have recovered, without having her damages first assessed in an action for wrongfully suing out the attachment, notwithstanding the words of the condition are, to pay such damages as shall be awarded in any suit which may hereafter be bronghtfor wrongfully suing out the attachment. Churchill v. Abraham, 22 Ill. 455.

There being no proof to warrant the finding, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ill. App. 120, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/packer-v-phillips-illappct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack