Skip to main content
· 3/30/1906

Southwestern Commercial Co. v. Owesney

Citations

  • 10 Ariz. 49
  • 85 P. 724
  • 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 94

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment — Expenses—Preservation op Property — Bev. Stats. Ariz. 1901, Pars. 350, 354, Construed. — Under paragraph 350, supra, which, although it makes no specific provision for the payment of expenses incurred by sheriffs in keeping attached property, yet clearly recognizes their rights to reimbursement, and paragraph 354, supra, providing that if the personal property be not replevied or reclaimed or sold under order of court, the judge may make such order for the preservation or use of the same as shall be to the interests of the parties, a sheriff, who, at the request of the plaintiff in attachment, without any order of court, places a watchman in charge of the property, who performs services, may recover the expense from the plaintiff.</p> <p>2. Same — Costs—Taxation.—Where the court makes an order for the preservation of property held under attachment it would soem the expenses might properly be taxed as costs in favor of the successful attaching plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Same — Pleading — Complaint — Becovery of Expenses. — A complaint for the recovery of expenses incurred by sheriff in attachment alleging that the attached property was held by the sheriff at the instance and request of the defendant, that at defendant’s instance he incurred expense in keeping a watchman in charge for a specified period, that the amount paid the watchman was reasonable, and that no part of the expense had been paid by defendant, — renders it good against demurrer.</p> <p>4. Same — Payment by Note. — Conceding that it was material that the sheriff, before he can recover expenses paid to watehmen placed in charge of goods upon request of plaintiff in attachment, must have paid the watchman, the giving of his note by the sheriff to the watchman is sufficient.</p> <p>5. Assignment — Evidence.—A written assignment of a claim, and the testimony of the assignor that he had assigned his claim to assignee, is sufficient proof of assignment to justify recovery by assignee.</p> <p>6

Judges: Campbell, Doan, Kent, Nave, Sloan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.