Akers v. State ex rel. Kent
Akers and Others v. The State on the relation of Kent and Another
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Suit against a sheriff and his sureties on his official bond.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
It is said two paragraphs of the answer were not replied to; but they set up no defense. The issues tried embraced the merits of the whole case; and no ground appears for the reversal of the judgment. See Tuley v. The State, 1 Ind. R. 500, and The State v. Porter, 7 id. 204. A sheriff holds till his successor is elected and qualified. The bond sued on was conditioned for the discharge of duties till a successor was elected and qualified, and, hence, continued the liability of sureties till that event, even if it otherwise would not have done so, a point we do not decide.
B. Crawford, for the appellants. D. C. Chipman and T. L. Smith, for the State.
The judgment below is affirmed with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.