Pfiefer v. Hartman

Citations

• 60 Miss. 505

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment. Judgment discharging lien. Defective appeal-bond. Effect on rights of claimant.</p> <p>Sects. 2434 and 2435 of the Code of 1880, in relation to attachments, provide that, “if the issue on a plea in abatement be found for the defendant, the attachment shall be thereby discharged, and all property seized under it; ” but “ if the plaintiff, within five days after the expiration of the term of the court at which judgment is rendered, discharging his attachment, shall perfect an appeal from such judgment, the attachment shall not be discharged, nor the property released therefrom, but such appeal shall preserve the attachment in full force, to await the result of the appeal.” Sects. 2324 and 2325 of the Code require that all appeal-bonds shall be signed by two sureties, freeholders in the State. Under these provisions, an appeal-bond given by a plaintiff in attachment against whom a judgment has been rendered upon a plea in abatement, if signed by only one surety, is defective, and does not, as against a claimant, preserve the lien on the property attached during the pendency of the appeal; nor can the lien be restored, as against the claimant, by the defendant in attachment waiving objection to the appeal-bond, and consenting to the rendition of a judgment in this court condemning the attached property to sale to pay the plaintiffs demand.</p> <p>2. Same. Defective appeal-bond. Discharge of claimant.</p> <p>Where, by reason of the giving of such defective appeal-bond, the lien on the attached property is lost, a claimant of the property is discharged from all obligation to further maintain his claim.</p> <p>3. Same. Proceedings statutory. Rule of construction.</p> <p>Proceedings in attachment being purely statutory, the statute must be complied with by the plaintiff, in order to entitle him to the benefit of its provisions.</p>