Eichoff v. Tidball

Citations

• 61 Tex. 421
• 3 Tex. L. R. 16
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 117

Syllabus

<p>1. Bond, pavee in — Damages — Intervenor — Attachment.— Where judgment was rendered in an attachment suit, ordering the sale of the goods seized under the writ, which directed the sheriff to retain a portion of the proceeds of sale in his hands to await the further judgment of the court, provided intervenors should, within a time specified, file a bond with the sheriff for a designated amount, conditioned that they would pay to the plaintiff in the suit all damages that he might sustain if they failed to show that he was not entitled thereto, held, that, though no person was designated as payee, a bond payable to the beneficiary under it was proper. Held, further:</p> <p>(1) That the fact that no consent of plaintiff to the order requiring the bond was shown could not affect its validity as a common law obligation. He must be construed as having been present in court when the order was made, and, making no objection thereto, must be regarded as ratifying it by defending the proceedings through which the intervenors sought to obtain possession of the money detained by the execution of the bond in the sheriff’s hands.</p> <p>(2) The intervenors had no right, without the execution of the bond, to have the money withheld until their claim could be determined.</p> <p>(3) The attachment lien having been foreclosed for plaintiff’s benefit, the bond given by intervener could not be attacked on the ground that it was the result of coercion.</p> <p>(4) This case clearly distinguished from Wooters v. Smith, 56 Tex., 199.</p> <p>(5) If the intervenor’s claim to the money was based on any reasonable claim of right, the only damages plaintiff could recover against him would be the loss naturally resulting to him from the loss of the use of the money while in the officer’s hands. This would be satisfied by a recovery of interest. Attorney’s fees would not be, in a legal sense, the natural results of the bond.</p>