title:
I R Dawson et al, Plaintiff in error, vs Isaac Baum, Defendant in error, Reply of Plaintiffs in error to Defendant's Brief
creator:
I. R. Dawson
creator:
Walker L. Bean
creator:
A. M. Cannon
creator:
B. H. Bennett
creator:
J. J. L. Peel
creator:
G. Palmtag
creator:
S. Wilson
creator:
V. Dessert
creator:
John N. Squier
creator:
J. D. Sherwood
contributor:
Houghton
contributor:
Graves
contributor:
Jones
contributor:
Nash
contributor:
Kinnaird
contributor:
D. Freidenrich
date:
1888-01-01
publisher:
Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
type:
Civil
subject:
Torts
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: ERROR to the District Court holding terms at Spokane Falls. Fourth District.The plaintiff, in his complaint, alleged that he was a reputable merchant, doing a profitable business, and was in possession of and used in business a stock of merchandise worth $ 10,000, which one Oscar Bates, at the instigation of and assisted by the defendants, unlawfully, maliciously, and oppressively took from plaintiff's possession, and carried the same away, and so detained the same, to his damage in the sum of $ 10,000. As special damage, he claimed $ 700 paid as attorney's fees, and $ 300 for other necessary expenses to regain possession of his property. He also claimed, as special damages, the profits of three (3) days' sales, while said stock was detained, and also for diminution of the value of the stock caused by the careless and negligent handling of the same by said defendant while in his possession. The defendants, except I. R. Dawson, who was not served, answered by denying all material allegations in the complaint, and affirmatively pleaded that said Oscar Bates, as sheriff, under a writ of attachment duly issued, in a suit by defendant Dawson against Sheeline Bros. upon a money demand, and directed to the sheriff, took into his possession the property described in the complaint as the property of Sheeline Bros., and that the sheriff held the property under the writ for two days, when the plaintiff Baum filed an affidavit claiming the property as his, and also a bond for the trial of the rights of property as prescribed by section 350 of the Code, whereupon the sheriff delivered the property to the plaintiff Baum; that prior to the issuance of the writ of attachment the defendant Dawson, as principal, and all the other defendants, as sureties, executed a bond, as required by the attachment law, and that the taking and detention of said property by said sheriff was under said writ, and that none of the defendants aided or assisted therein; that after the plaintiff Baum had delivered his affidavit and bond, under section 350 of the Code, the sheriff approved the bond and returned the same, with the affidavit, to the clerk of the District Court, as required by section 352 of the Code, and that said cause was placed upon the trial docket and a trial had, resulting in favor of the claimant and a judgment for the return of the property, which was claimed as a bar to any recovery of damages for the acts of the sheriff under the writ of attachment. The plaintiff replied by denials. A trial was had, and verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed.
description:
Judgment - Effect - Res Adjudicata - Trespass - Code Section 350 - Where plaintiff's goods were attached as the debtor's property, and in the special statutory action provided for by section 350 of the Code, which plaintiff brought against the sheriff and the attaching creditor, he obtained a judgment for the return of the goods, such judgment is a bar to another action against the sheriff, the attaching creditor and the sureties on the indemnity bond, to recovers damages for the trespass.Attachments - Torts by Sheriff - Sureties - Liabilities of - The sureties on an indemnity bond, preliminary to the issue of an attachment, are not liable for a tort committed by the sheriff making the levy as by a willful conversion of the good taken to his own use, unless such act was contemplated or advised by them or unless they assisted in or directed it.Same - Same - Malice - Malice cannot be presumed as against the sureties on such bonds, who are strangers to the controversies, and not interested in the result, though they signed it without previously examining into the merits of the case.New Trial - Motion for - Practice - Statement of Grounds - A motion for a new trial, not specifically stating the grounds relied on save in the language in the statute setting out the various causes therefor, will be denied (See Stats. of Wash., 1888, p.30. - Rep.)
relation:
Dawson v. Baum, 3 Wash. Terr. 464 (1888)
relation:
19 P. 46
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf