¶1I do not concur in any part of this ■opinion which may be construed as holding that a subsequent attaching creditor is not liable on his indemnity bond when he received none of the proceeds of sale of the attached property; but, for other reasons stated therein, I agree the judgment ■should be affirmed.
2 Idaho 662
Fury v. White
Decided February 24, 1890
Idaho Supreme Court · decided 1890-02-24
The sheriff’s right to recover on the attachment bond does not in any manner depend upon the question whether the giver of the bond was benefited or not by the seizure and sale, nor upon the fact whether he received any part of the money for which the property was sold. (Weber v. Ferris, 37 How.
Decided 1890-02-24