Wingate v. Brooks
WINGATE v. BROOKS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court, Wells, Justice, concurring.
This was an action on a statute bond, given to the sheriff, and by him assigned to the plaintiff.
At the time, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was refused, and the refusal is here assigned for error.
I think the nonsuit was properly refused. ' The first ground *113for the motion is not well taken. The bond seems to me substantially to conform to the requisitions of the act, and no variation has been pointed out.
The succeeding grounds are based upon the action of the court in the case in which the bond was given. The errors of that case, if any, cannot be reviewed in this.
The judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.