Smith v. Fisher

5 Citing cases

  1. Wm. W. Bierce, Ltd., v. Waterhouse

    219 U.S. 320 (1911)   Cited 18 times
    In Bierce v. Waterhouse, 219 U.S. 320 [55 L.Ed. 237, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 241], it is held that an action upon a redelivery bond in replevin is not premature where commenced pending appeal.

    The sureties were discharged by the amendments increasing the valuation of the property and the recovery of judgment for the increased amount. The foundation of the ancillary proceeding in which the bond was given was an affidavit in which the plaintiff fixes the actual value, and the contract was entered into with reference to the value so fixed. Anderson v. Hapler, 34 Ill. 436; S.C., 85 Am. Dec. 318; Bardwell v. Stubbert, 17 Neb. 485; S.C., 23 N.W. 344; Ah Leong v. Kee You, 8 How. 416, 418; Achi v. Alapai, 9 Haw. 591, 592; Smith v. Fisher, 13 R.I. 624; Simpson v. Wilcox, 18 R.I. 40. This is a statutory bond, into which all existing provisions of law enter, including that under which the plaintiff fixes the actual value on which the bond is conditioned.

  2. Bates v. American Surety Co.

    50 R.I. 402 (R.I. 1929)   Cited 3 times

    This contention cannot be sustained as we have held that said questions cannot be determined by the court when it has no jurisdiction of the subject matter. Smith v. Fisher, Sheriff, 13 R.I. 624; McKittrick v. Bates et al, supra. This is the first time that Mr. McKittrick has had an opportunity to prove his title and right to the possession of the replevied goods.

  3. McKittrick v. Bates

    47 R.I. 240 (R.I. 1926)   Cited 15 times

    This judgment, being based on lack of jurisdiction, could not determine title. Smith v. Fisher, 13 R.I. 624, but plaintiff had the right to commence a new action within one year. G.L. 1909, Chap. 297, s. 1.

  4. Kimball Company v. Tasca

    59 A. 919 (R.I. 1905)   Cited 3 times

    The defendant's second objection to the bond, however, is well founded. It is neither the bond of the W.W. Kimball Company nor that of James Parkinson, clearly not such a bond as the statute prescribes, and is consequently insufficient to authorize the service of the writ. Such a bond was held defective on a plea in abatement to the writ in Smith v. Fisher, 13 R.I. 624, and would be so held on a plea in abatement or motion to dismiss seasonably made in this case. Conceding as we do that the bond in this action does not comply with the statutory requirements, nevertheless we are of the opinion that the objection came too late.

  5. Simpson v. Wilcox

    25 A. 391 (R.I. 1892)   Cited 1 times

    The question, however, whether such a defect can be amended in this State was before the court in Whitford, Sanders Co. v. Goodwin, 13 R.I. 145, and it was held that the bond could not be amended under Gen. Stat. R.I. cap. 224, § 4, reenacted in Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 235, § 4, that provision being applicable only in favor of the defendant and on his motion; nor under Gen. Stat. R.I. cap. 199, § 4; reenacted in Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 210, § 4, permitting amendments of process, c., because the bond could not be regarded as a part of the process, but only as collateral to it. And see, also, Smith v. Fisher, 13 R.I. 624, in which it was held that a valid bond is a prerequisite to valid service of the writ. These cases must be regarded as settling the law in this State. We, therefore, sustain the defendant's motion to dismiss.