Case ID: ky-op_9/html/0552-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Pryor :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isaac Baker, et al., v. Hiram Freeman.
    Officer’s Writ to Take Property — Where Property Delivered.
    Where an. officer has a writ to take possession of personal property the order of delivery may be directed to another county than that in which the action is pending.
    Writ — Protection of Officer.
    Where plaintiff executed a bond to the defendant and under a writ secures the possession of personal property, if he fails in his action the defendant may recover on such bond, but the officer who serves the writ is fully protected thereby.
    APPEAL FROM LEE CIRCUIT COURT.
    September 19, 1877.
    
      J. N. Cardwell, for appellants.
    
    
      H. C. Lilly, for appellee.
    
   Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

It is not pretended that the appellant acted in bad faith, or that he was not clothed with the authority to take the oxen under the writ or order issued by the Breathitt County Justice. The action was against the appellee, and by an express condition of the Code an order of delivery may be directed to another county than that in which the action is pending. Moore was holding the oxen for the appellee and declined to give bond. A bond was executed to- Freeman, upon which he can obtain indemnity. This bond is made part of the record, and if the action in Breathitt is decided against the plaintiff we see no reason why the appellee cannot proceed against Helton and his sureties. It is conceded that the oxen in controversy are the same mentioned in the order of delivery, and an instruction was given to the effect that this protected the officer. The instruction was proper, and the defense of the appellants fully sustained by the proof. The order of delivery justified the taking and the bond executed by Helton was an indemnity to the appellee.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded with directions to award a new trial and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.