Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 edition. Excerpt: ...Wilson vs. Outlaw, Minor's both parties to the action, is that Rep. 367. "It was obvious that the the property or its appraised value taking and detention of his proper in money shall be fortheoming to ty might be ruinous to the owner, statutes, the defendant in attachment may have an action on the bond without first recovering or being "awarded" damages against the plaintiff.185 The main purpose of the courts, however, in the interpretation of the provisions being to construe the undertaking with as much strictness as the rights of the parties will permit, and not to depart from the literal meaning of the terms where it can be avoided. The preponderance of authority is that malice need not be shown as a basis of recovery, and that the damages need not be first adjudicated against the principal. 199. Attachment bonds not forfeited for irregularities of execution or defects in form. The statute prescribes the conditions and requirements for bonds in attachment proceedings, but these terms are for the protection of the defendant and the plaintiff and his sureties who have had the benefit of the extraordinary remedy of a seizure of although there was no sort of malice or corrupt motive in the party at whose suit it might be attached. Why should the condition prescribed for the bond be ' to pay all damages sustained by the icrongful or vexatious suing out' if it had been the intention of the Legislature that no damages should be recovered unless for malicious suing out? If such had been their intention, would not the term malicious readily have occurred, and been used instead of those employed? A verbal criticism can hardly be necessary to prove that the party whose property is attached may find the proceeding wrongful..."
