19 Ill.App. 300 (Ill.App. 1885), Jones v. People

Citation:19 Ill.App. 300
Opinion Judge:WALL, P. J.
Party Name:JONES ET AL. v. THE PEOPLE, ETC
Attorney:Mr. JAMES R. WARD, for appellants; Mr. MARK MEYERSTEIN, for appellees;
Court:Court of Appeals of Illinois
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 300

19 Ill.App. 300 (Ill.App. 1885)

JONES ET AL.

v.

THE PEOPLE, ETC

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

November, 1885

Opinion Filed February 25, 1886.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Green county; the Hon. G. W. HERDMAN, judge, presiding.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. JAMES R. WARD, for appellants; that plaintiff, by her election, has waived all other remedies, cited Karr v. Barstow, 24 Ill. 581; Kreuchi v. Dehler, 50 Ill. 177; Harrison v. Singleton, 2 Scam. 22; Derickson v. Krause, 4 Bradwell 507; Merricks v. Davis, 65 Ill. 319.

As to measure of damages: Sutherland on Damages, Vol. I, 117, Vol. II, 32; Lawrence v. Hagerman, 56 Ill. 76; Daviss v. Crow, 7 Blackf. 129; Bates v. Courtwright, 36 Ill. 518.

Plaintiff had no right of action upon the sheriff's bond: State v. Conover, 4 Dutcher 224; South v. Maryland, 18 How. (U.S.) 396; State v. Long, 8 Iredell 415; State v. Brown, 11 Iredell 141; Gerber v. Ackely, 32 Wis. 233; McElhaney v. Gilleland, 30 Ala. 183; Brown v. Mosely, 11 S. & M. 354; Jenkins v. Lomonds, 29 Ind. 294; Carey v. States, 34 Ind. 105.

Mr. MARK MEYERSTEIN, for appellees; that plaintiff had a remedy on the sheriff's official bond, cited Horan v. People, 10 Bradwell 21; People v. Robinson, 89 Ill. 159; Walsh v. People, 6 Bradwell 204; 2 Sutherland on Damages, 31.

As to damages: Sutherland on Damages, Vol. I, 106, 142; Vol. II, 61.

OPINION

WALL, P. J.

Page 301

This was an action of debt on the official bond of a sheriff. The breach complained of was that the sheriff, having a writ of attachment at the suit of Geiseke, Mysenburg & Co., against the property of one James W. Israel, levied upon the property of Elizabeth Israel, for whose use this suit is brought.

A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, the damages being assessed at $ 622.05.

A motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was entered upon the verdict.

It is objected, first, that the cause of action here set up can not be maintained upon the official bond of the sheriff and his sureties. There is some conflict of authority on the question, but we are inclined to think the weight of authority, as well as sound reason, will support the view that the levy by a sheriff upon the property of B, by virtue of a writ against A, is a breach of his bond. Walsh v. The People, etc., 6...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP