Chandler v. Rutherford
| Decision Date | 16 April 1900 |
| Docket Number | 1,313. |
| Citation | Chandler v. Rutherford, 101 F. 774 (8th Cir. 1900) |
| Parties | CHANDLER v. RUTHERFORD et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
This case was tried and determined below on demurrer to the complaint, which was adjudged insufficient to sustain a judgment. The first paragraph of the complaint, which was filed by James Chandler, the plaintiff in error, alleged, in substance, that Samuel M. Rutherford, one of the defendants in error, and one of the defendants below, was the duly appointed and acting United States marshal in and for the Northern district of the Indian Territory, and that the other defendants in error, to wit, George Sparks, John F. Williams Clarence W. Turner, Andrew W. Robb, Pleasant No. Blackstone and James D. Lankford, were sureties upon the official bond of said Samuel M. Rutherford as such United States marshal in and for the Northern district of the Indian Territory, a copy of which bond was attached to the complaint. The remaining material allegations of the complaint were as follows:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Richardson v. State
... ... C. L. 446; Malcolmson v. Scott, 56 Mich ... 459, 23 N.W. 166; Cunningham v. Baker, 104 Ala. 160, ... 16 So. 68, 53 Am. St. Rep. 27; Chandler v. Rutherford, 101 F ... 774, 43 C. C. A. 218 ... We ... respectfully submit, therefore, that the court manifestly ... erred in ... ...
-
Helgeson v. Powell
... ... without process, then there is no such color of office as ... will impose a liability upon the sureties on his official ... bond. ( Chandler v. Rutherford [101 F. 774], ... supra .) ... "'It ... is only such acts of a sheriff as are done under color of ... office, involving ... ...
-
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco v. Smith
...done colore officii. (Haffner v. United States F. & G. Co., 35 Idaho 517, 207 P. 716; Gray v. Noonan, 5 Ariz. 167, 50 P. 116; Chandler v. Rutherford, 101 F. 774, 43 C. A. 218; Best v. Johnson, 78 Cal. 217, 12 Am. St. 41, 20 P. 415, 3 L. R. A. 168; State v. Dierker, 401 Mo. 636, 74 S.W. 153;......
-
Falls v. Palmetto Power & Light Co.
...40 N.Y. 463; Fulton v. Staats, 41 N.Y. 498; Neal v. Joyner, 89 N.C. 287; Russell v. Shuster, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 308; Chandler v. Rutherford, 101 F. 774, 43 C. C. A. 218; Kirk v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383, 35 A. 1089; Brish v. Carter, 98 Md. 445, 57 A. 210; Gale v. Hoyt, 5 Dane, Abr. (Mass.) 588; ......