Forbes & Bro. v. Porter

Citations

• 25 Fla. 362

Syllabus

<p>I. The plaintiff instituted attachment proceedings against the defendants ; the defendants traversed the affidavit and moved to dissolve the attachment on the issue made by the traverse, and also because of the illegality of the bond ; a jury was empanelled to try the issues, but before any evidence was submitted, counsel for defendants called the attention of the court to the pendency of the question of the illegality of the bond, and asked a ruling thereon, which the court refused. The jury tried the issue made by the traverse, and found for the plaintiff; counsel again called up the question of the illegality of the bond, and requested the court to determine the same, but the court again refused to make any ruling thereon, “ because not made until after the jury wasempanelled to try the ground of fraud Held, That the refusal of the court to hear and determine the question as to the illegality of the attachment bond was erroneous.</p> <p>3. A power of attorney, under seal, is required to authorize an agent to execute a bond in the name of the principal under the attachment laws of this State.</p>