Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by William Wood, against Stephen B. Barker and others, the sureties of said Barker; and was founded on‘an attachment bond, executed by the defendants, in a suit previously brought by said Barker against the plaintiff in this suit. The attachment bond was conditioned as the statute prescribes.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1860-06-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1900
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1If the attachment was not vexatious as against the defendant himself, the fact that the attaching creditor was actuated by malice against some third person, not aparty to the process, affords no ground for the recovery of vindictive damages in this suit.
¶2[2-8.]A part of the testimony of the witness Williams consisted of "the declarations which the defendant made at the time the attachment was issued', -as to his reasons for having it issued. These declarations were admissible as part of the res gestee.—Pitts v. Burroughs, 6 Ala. 735-6, and cases cited; Dearing v. Moore, 26 Ala. 590; Sanford v. Howard, 29 Ala. 695. The exception tak'en was to the admission of the whole of the witness’ evidence; and, as part of it was admissible, this court will not reverse, even if other portions of it were illegal. On that point, however, it is not necessary for us to express an opinion.