Howe v. Mason

Decided October 16, 1861

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 1861-10-16

One Lester sued Howe, the plaintiff, in replevin before the defendant Mason, a justice of the peace. Iiowe succeeded in that action and now sues Mason and his sureties on his official bond for talcing insufficient sureties on the re-plevin bond, alleging that he knew the sureties to be worthless, and accepted the same carelessly, negligently, wilfully and corruptly. The answer is in denial, generally and specifically.

Relies on Yates v. Lansing

Decided 1861-10-16

Wright, J.

¶1Appellants position is sustained by the following authorities which we cite, and without repeating the arguments made, conclude that the testimony should have been received. Hatfield v. Towsley, 3 G. Greene, 584; Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. 282; S. C. 9 Ib. 395; Vanderheyder v. Young, 11 Ib. 150; Jenkins v. Waldron, Ib. 114; Linford v. Fitzroy, 13 Ad. & Ell. 240; Chickering v. Robininson, 3 Cush. 543; Tyter v. Alford, 38 Maine 530; Pratt v. Gardener, 2 Cush. 63; Bullitt v. Clement, 16 B. Monr. 193; 1 Chit. Pl, 68; 2 Hilliard on Torts, Oh. 19, p. 311.

¶2The testimony offered tended to show due care and diligence, and as a consequence, the absence of negligence.

¶3Reversed.