Huston

Huston v. Big Bend Land Co.

Good Law
1 F.2d 93·1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 1790
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 2, 1924No. 4108California1,726 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

This is an action by Huston and wife to recover from the Big Bend Land Company and the sureties upon a bond for damages alleged to have been consequent upon the issuance and execution of a writ of restitution in an unlawful detainer ease instituted in a state court in Washington by the Big Bend Land Company, a corporation, against the Hustons.

The writ of restitution was issued under section 819 of Remington’s Compiled Statutes of Washington, which provides that plaintiff, at the time of commencing an action of unlawful detainer, may apply to the judge of the court for a writ of restitution, and the judge shall issue a writ, but before the issuance thereof plaintiff shall execute to tiie defendant and file in court a bond in such sum as the judge may order, with two or more sureties, conditioned that plaintiff shall prosecute his action without delay and will pay all costs and damages which defendant may sustain by reason of the writ of restitution having been, issued, should the same be wrongfully sued out. Bond was given and approved, and the sheriff ousted the Hustons, and put the Land Company in possession. After eviction and trial the state court entered judgment in favor of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.