McDonald v. Fett
California Supreme Court
McDonald v. Fett, 49 Cal. 354 (Cal. 1874)
Niles
McDonald v. Fett
Opinion of the Court
By the act of signing an attachment bond, the surety does not become a participant in the seizure or detention of the attached property by the Sheriff, or liable as a trespasser for such acts. His liability arises under his contract merely, and is limited by its terms and conditions.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Rhodes did not express an opinion.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- E. McDonald v. CHARLES FETT And A. PRESCOTT
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Shbbty on Attachment Bond.—The liability of a surety on an attachment bond is on his contract. He is not liable as a trespasser, for a seizure of property attached by the sheriff, evenjf the bond was void.