J. L. MOORE AND C. L. SAWYER, APPELLANTS,
v.
H. H. HOLDER, JR., APPELLEE
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.
Sureties on an attachment bond appealed the enforcement of the bond, arguing that the property levied upon was not the same property described in the mortgage being foreclosed. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment against the sureties, holding that bond obligors are estopped from questioning the validity or scope of the attachment levy.
The appellants' challenge to the bond's enforceability fails because sureties are estopped from questioning the validity of the attachment writ, the levy itself, or whether the property was subject to levy. The bond is enforceable for payment of the final judgment or decree in the action.
“The obligors on a bend of this character are estopped from questioning the validity of the writ, or of the levy, or the fact of levy, or from setting up that the property was not subject to levy.”
Establishes that sureties cannot contest the attachment or levy process by claiming the wrong property was seized.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe principal gave a bond, for which appellants served as sureties, to secure release of property levied upon under an attachment writ in aid of a cha…
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 Foreclosure Of Chattel Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitehurst, Circuit Judge: The appellants were sureties on a bond given by the principal against whom suit was ccmmenced in the Circuit Court of Lake County to foreclose a chattel mortgage.
The complainant sued out a writ of attachment in aid of foreclosure. The bond was given for the release of the property levied on and was conditioned that the property would be forthcoming upon the final decree and further conditioned to pay the amount of the final decree in said cause.
The appellants now contend that the property levied upon by virtue of the attachment writ and for the release of which the bond was given was not the same property described in the mortgage being foreclosed and, therefore, the bond is unenforceable against them.
The chancellor found that the property could not be forthcoming and, thereupon, entered judgment against the principal and sureties on the bond for the amount found to be due.
There is no error in this decree. The bond is for the payment of the final order, judgment and decree made in said cause and is authorized by Sections 3417, 3418 of the Eevised General Statutes.
The obligors on a bend of this character are estopped from questioning the validity of the writ, or of the levy, or the fact of levy, or from setting up that the property was not subject to levy. 6 C. J. 351, 352; Town of Weston v. Raulston, 41 Southeastern 338; 17 R. C. L. 248. The decree is affirmed.
Per Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by this Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.