Wilson v. Williams

52 Ark. 360
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided November 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

52 Ark. 360 (Wilson v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morgan v. Hess
194 S.W.2d 871 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1946)
Benge v. Foster
74 S.W.2d 542 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Eddings v. Boner
38 S.W. 1110 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1897)