Miller v. Foutz
Miller v. Foutz
Opinion of the Court
Even on this ground, there are different adjudications ;
Plaintiff may recover against a sheriff for taking insufficient sureties in. a replevin bond, more than double the value of the goods distrained. Ter Lord Loughborough. Concanen v. Lethbridge. Easter, 32 Geo. 3. 2 H. Bla. 40. But it was afterwards determined, that the sheriff in such case is liable in damages to the extent of double the value of the goods distrained, but no further. Evans v. Brander et al. Trin. 35 Geo. 3. 2 H. Bla. 550.
1 H. Bla. 76. 2 Stra. 922. Though it was formerly held, that bail Were not liable beyond the sum sworn to and iho costs. Doug. 316. Lofft. 545. Tidd’s Pract. 131, (note 9.) Hullo. 606.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- John Miller, esq. late Sheriff of Lancaster county against Michael Foutz and Michael Wither, surviving obligors Same against Michael Foutz, surviving obligor Same against Same
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published