Robinson v. Soule
This text of 56 Miss. 549 (Robinson v. Soule) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The discharge in bankruptcy of Shotwell & Fitts did not prevent the rendition, “in said suit,” of a judgment for the restoration of the goods ; and, as plaintiff in error was bound by his undertaking, as surety on the replevin bond, for the forthcoming of the goods, “ to abide the judgment of the court in said suit,” he was not released from his obligation by the discharge of Shotwell & Fitts. Eyster v. Gaff et al., 91 U. S. 521; Wolf et al. v. Stix (MS.), U. S. Sup. Ct.
[552]*552The bankruptcy of plaintiff in error, followed by a composition with creditors, with no mention of defendants in error as creditors, did not furnish a reason for refusing or delaying judgment against him.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
56 Miss. 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-soule-miss-1879.