ALBERT W. HALLIDAY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MARIE D. WRIGHT AND THOMAS F. WRIGHT, HER HUSBAND, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this replevin action, Halliday was found liable for wrongfully taking property and was jointly judged liable with his sureties on a forthcoming bond for the property's assessed value. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the defendants' motion to dismiss Halliday's writ of error, holding that a joint judgment defendant may seek separate review of trial proceedings.
A judgment defendant in a replevin action has the right to sue out a writ of error in his own name alone to have reviewed the trial proceedings and verdict finding that he wrongfully took or detained the property and its assessed value, notwithstanding that the judgment was joint against him and his sureties.
“the court is of opinion that Halliday has the right in cases of this kind to sue out a writ of error in his own name alone, and to have reviewed the proceedings of the trial court resulting in the verdict finding that he wrongfuly took or detained the property and its value.”
This establishes the core holding that a joint judgment defendant may file a separate writ of error to review trial proceedings and the verdict against him.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright brought a replevin action against Halliday to recover property. Halliday redelivered the property upon posting a forthcoming bond with Uriah Bo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forthcoming Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.:
This was an action of replevin brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error. The property seized was redelivered to tlje defendant below upon his giving a forthcoming-bond under the statute (§ 1719 Rev. Stats.) with Uriah Bowden and Thomas Jackson as sureties thereon. The cause was tried on May 15th, 1900, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs below to the following effect: That the plaintiffs do have and recover judgment against the defendant Halliday for the property (specifically describing it), and further, that the said plaintiffs do recover of and from the said Halliday, and said Bowden and Jackson sureties on his forthcoming bond, the sum of four hundred dollars, the assessed value of the property as found by the jury. From this judgment Halliday alone takes writ of error to this court.
Motion is now made by the defendants in error to dismiss the writ of error upon the following grounds, in substance: Because the judgment to be reviewed is a joint one against three, and can not be reviewed on a writ of error sued out in the name of one of such judgment defendants alone.
Various errors are assigned by the sole plaintiff in error, among them several questioning rulings of the court made at the trial of the replevin suit prior to the rendition of the judgment. The court is of opinion that Halliday has the right in cases of this kind to sue out a writ of error in his own name alone, and to have reviewed the proceedings of the trial court resulting in the verdict finding that he wrongfuly took or detained the property and its value. Whether his right to review upon his separate writ of error extends further than this, it is unnecessary to decide at this time. The fact that before the writ of error issued, plaintiffs in replevin had elected to §ue out execution against Halliday and his sureties for the value of the property as authorized by section 1724 Revised Statutes, ¿loes not, in the opinion of the court, affect the right of Halliday to his separate writ of error to review rulings in the case to the extent indicated. Crites v. Littleton, 23 Iowa 205; Stump v. Sheppard, Cooke (Tenn.) 190.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glass v. Cont'l Guar. Corp., 81 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1921)…were overruled, and the defendant Glass alone took writ of error. The defendant in a replevin action may take a writ of error separate from his sureties on a forthcoming bond. Henry v. Whitehead, 66 Fla. 567, 64 South. Rep. 233; Halliday v. Wright, 43 Fla. 46, 29 South. Rep. 534. It is a general principle applicable to traffic in personal property that no one can transfer or confer a better title than he has, unless some principle of estoppel operates to bar a claim under an otherwise better title. The…
-
Henry v. Whitehurst, 66 Fla. 567 (Fla. 1914)…t the principal if the judgment may he enforced against the surety pending the review of the judgment on writ of error. The defendant in a replevin action may take a writ of error separate from his sureties on a forthcoming bond. Halliday v. Wright, 43 Fla. 46, 29 South. Rep. 534. The judgment being in the alternative under the statute with the right of the plaintiff to elect as to its enforcement, and the plaintiff having elected to enforce it as a money judgment, the supersedeas bond is substantially co…