Robbins v. Peeler

2 Citing cases

  1. U.S. Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Luttrell

    138 S.E.2d 457 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 2 times

    Nor may such fact be shown in mitigation of damage." Although the attachment instituted is void, if it was in fact instituted by the defendant and had the result of depriving the plaintiff of his property, a right of action lies. Peterson v. Wiesner, 62 Nev. 184 ( 146 P.2d 789); Robbins v. Peeler, 192 Okla. 123 ( 134 P.2d 350); 6 Am. Jur. 2d 997, Attachment and Garnishment, ยง 615. The liability of a surety on a statutory bond depends on the terms of the statute; it is presumed that the intent of the parties is to execute such a bond as the law requires, and the statutory requirement is accordingly read into the terms of the bond.

  2. Robbins v. Mid-West Creamery Co.

    162 P.2d 541 (Okla. 1945)

    This is an appeal by C.E. Robbins from a judgment of the district court of Noble county sustaining an interplea of Mid-West Creamery Company. On March 22, 1943, after final judgment in Robbins v. Peeler, 192 Okla. 123, 134 P.2d 350, Robbins paid the principal amount of the judgment, $334.27, to Emmett Rosser, an attorney for Peeler. Thereupon Robbins sued Peeler in the justice court on an account for work and labor, and garnishment process was served upon Rosser. Theretofore, on September 17, 1941, Peeler had made written assignment to Mid-West Creamery Company of a half interest in the Peeler-Robbins judgment for the purpose of securing and paying money owed.