Grimes v. Payne
Citation | 1925 OK 472,116 Okla. 295,244 P. 753 |
Decision Date | 09 June 1925 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 1532 |
Parties | GRIMES et al. v. PAYNE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. Replevin--Surety on Replevin Bond Liable to Parties Subsequently Interpleaded.
The undertaking of a surety on a replevin bond to return the property to the defendant if a return be adjudged, obligates the surety to those who are defendants at the time the judgment is rendered. A surety on a replevin bond is bound to know that, under the statutes, other parties may be interpleaded to whom his liability may extend.
2. Judgment--Replevin -- Not Subject to Collateral Attack When Facts of Jurisdiction Recited.
In an action against the surety on a replevin bond, where the record recites fact showing that the court had jurisdiction in the replevin action, its judgment is not subject to collateral attack.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Garvin County; A. C. Barrett, Judge.
Action by Walter Scott Payne against C. L. Grimes and R. W. Ross as sureties on replevin bond. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Bowling & Farmer, for plaintiffs in error.
Blanton, Osborn & Curtis, for defendant in error.
¶1 Parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court, inverse to their order here. One Tapp agreed to exchange real estate with plaintiff, Payne, the latter depositing a Liberty Bond of the denomination of $ 500 in escrow in a bank, as the difference agreed to be paid to Tapp. For reasons immaterial here, the exchange of property was never made, each party forbidding the bank to deliver the Liberty Bond to the other. Thereupon, Tapp brought replevin action against the bank for the Liberty Bond, not joining Payne as defendant. His replevin bond was executed by defendants Grimes and Ross, as sureties. On failure of the bank to execute a redelivery bond, the Liberty Bond remained in the possession of Tapp. At the instance of the bank, Payne was made a defendant, and answered, claiming the bond. In the meantime, Tapp died, and, by agreement, his heirs were substituted as plaintiffs. The heirs proceeded to trial without objection to the manner of their substitution or the appearance of Payne as a defendant. Alternative judgment was rendered for Payne. Such heirs having failed and refused to return the Liberty Bond to Payne, the latter brought the instant action against defendants as sureties for its value. From the judgment in favor of Payne, defendants have appealed.
To continue reading
Request your trial