Case Name: Cochran et al., Respondents, v. Goddard, Claimant, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1858-10
Citations: 27 Mo. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cochran et al., Respondents, v. Goddard, Claimant, Appellant.
Judges: the other judges concurring.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
Cochran et al., Respondents, v. Goddard, Claimant, Appellant.
1. The only objection that can be entertained by the court — rnider the seventh section of the local act of March 3, 1853, concerning the duties of sheriff and marshal in the county of St. Louis, (Sess. Acts, 1855, p. 464) — to an indemnification bond demanded by the sheriff under said act is in relation to the sufficiency of the security; it can not be objected that the penalty of the bond is insufficient.
2. The action of the court under the 8th section is not conclusive on the claimant as to any other valid objection to the bond.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
Under and by virtue of an execution in favor of Cochran and Clark against Brooks, the sheriff of St. Louis county levied upon certain personal property as the property of said Brooks. Goddard made claim to said property as his own, and supported his claim by his affidavit as required by the local act of March 3,1855. (See Sess. Acts, 1855, p. 464.) The plaintiff Cochran gave an indemnification bond, with two sureties, in the penal sum of $2,400. The claimant, Goddard, moved the court to declare said bond insufficient on the ground that the actual value of the property levied upon greatly exceeded the amount of said bond. At the hearing of this motion the claimant offered to prove that the value of the property levied on and claimed was $3,800, and not $1,200 as stated in the indemnification bond. The court refused to admit the testimony, and overruled the motion.
N. D. & G. P. Strong, for appellant.
I. The court had authority, and ought to have exercised it, to order the sheriff to file a new or additional indemnifying bond. It ought to have heard evidence as to the value of the property. The bond was wholly insufficient in the amount of its penal sum.

Opinion:
Richardson, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only objection which the court can entertain to a bond of indemnity, under the seventh section of the local act concerning the sheriff and marshal of St. Louis county, (Sess. Acts, 1855, p. 464,) is in relation to the sufficiency of the security; and of course the action of the court under the eighth section is not conclusive on the claimant as to any other valid objection to the bond.
The judgment will be affirmed;
the other judges concurring.