Court Opinion

ID: 9810843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:01:11.062301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:16.116126
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.
(dissenting): As to the defendant, the proposition is unquestionable that the plaintiff can recover, as to him, the contract price less the payments made by the defendant, and the proceeds of sale made by order of the Court. But as to the sureties in claim and delivery, it is “ not so nominated in the bond.” They did not become liable for the debt, but for the return of the property or its value. As *506on the plaintiff’s objection they were debarred from showing the value of the property when the replevy bond was given, the sureties were clearly liable only for its proceeds when sold, and such proceeds having been applied on the debt they are no longer liable therefor. The condition of the bond “ for the return of the property if it should be adjudged, and for the payment to plaintiff of such sum as he may for any cause recover against the defendant,” means such sum as he may recover for any cause concerning the property replevied, as for failure to return the property, and for damage to or use of same, and not liability on the part of the sureties for any indebtedness of defendant to plaintiff over and above the value of the property ageeed to be returned if so adjudged, and the damages caused by the detention. This is in accord with the express decision of this Court (Davis, J.,) in this case when it was here, 103 N. C., 276. The rule as to the measure of the liability of sureties laid down when the case was again here, 110 N. C.,. 228, only applies when the property is worth or sells for more than the balance due on the contract price. I do not think the sureties on the replevy bond are bound for the deterioration of the property between the time of the contract and the date of the seizure under the claim and delivery and giving the bond thereunder.