Wilson v. Williams

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Wilson v. Williams

52 Ark. 360

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 15, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 52 Ark. 360 (Wilson v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Williams, 52 Ark. 360 (Ark. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Replevin: Plaintiff bond. The only bond taken by the Sheriff before executing the order of delivery in the replevin suit was signed by the plaintiffs m replevin alone. But the statute prescribes that the order shall not be executed by the officer until a bond to the defendant, with one or more sureties for the plaintiff, has been executed in his presence. Mansf. Dig., sec. 5575. If the officer executes the order without such bond, he becomes a trespasser, and is liable to the party injured, as such. Pirani v. Borden, 5 Ark., 89; State v. Stephens, 14 ib., 264.

The solvency of the plaintiff in replevin does not dispense with the necessity for one or more sureties, for that is a statutory requirement. See cases cited in Wells on Replevin, sec. 390.

The charge of the court was erroneous. Reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam.

Replevin: Plaintiff bond. The only bond taken by the Sheriff before executing the order of delivery in the replevin suit was signed by the plaintiffs m replevin alone. But the statute prescribes that the order shall not be executed by the officer until a bond to the defendant, with one or more sureties for the plaintiff, has been executed in his presence. Mansf. Dig., sec. 5575. If the officer executes the order without such bond, he becomes a trespasser, and is liable to the party injured, as such. Pirani v. Borden, 5 Ark., 89; State v. Stephens, 14 ib., 264.

The solvency of the plaintiff in replevin does not dispense with the necessity for one or more sureties, for that is a statutory requirement. See cases cited in Wells on Replevin, sec. 390.

The charge of the court was erroneous. Reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Ark. 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-williams-ark-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack