Court Opinion

ID: 9825479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:07:03.056375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:51.993629
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the application for rehearing it is again insisted that the return of the sheriff on the bond, whereby he forfeited same, is not in conformity,with the statute. In this connection appellant cites the case of Jaffe v. Leatherman, 222 Ala. 326, 131 So. 902, in support of this contention.
Section 7391 of the Code 1923, provides: “If the unsuccessful party, who has given bond and taken the property into possession, fails, for thirty days after the judgment, to deliver the property, and to pay the damages assessed for the detention thereof, and the costs, the sheriff must upon the bond make return of the fact of such failure; and thereupon the bond has the force and effect of a judgment, on which execution may issue against any or all the obligors therein for the alternative value of the property as assessed by the jury, and the damages assessed for its detention and the costs; if the property be delivered, and the damages assessed for its detention and the cost be not paid, the sheriff must upon the bond, make return of the fact, and execution must issue against any or all of the obligors for such damages and costs, or for either, as either may be unpaid.”
So far as we can see, the sheriff’s return was in strict accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statute. See, also, section 7401 of the Code. The return of the sheriff is as follows: “State of Alabama. Coffee County. Judgment having been rendered in this cause for more than thirty days and the defendant having failed to surrender the property replqyied and pay the costs and damages adjudged by the court, I hereby declare this bond forfeited. Witness my hand this the 7th day of January, 1931. O..F. Lightner, Sheriff of Coffee County, Alabama.”
This return of the sheriff must be construed in connection with the bond in question and its conditions, and, when so construed, it clearly shows that the property replevied had not been delivered to the plaintiff as the bond provided and required.
The returns of the sheriff were made upon the premise disclosed by the proof which showed no delivery of the property had been made to the plaintiff, or to the sheriff, and it also showed that the amount of the mortgage debt ascertained and determined by the court had not been paid.
Here there is a marked difference in the returns of the sheriff and the returns made by the sheriff in Jaffe v. Leatherman Case, supra, in which case there was no bill of exceptions.
The application for rehearing is overruled.