Raspillier v. Brownson

An intervenor in a suit commenced by attachment between the original parties, although he succeeds in obtaining judgment, cannot proceed on the attachment bond against the surety for any supposed damages, . because he is no party thereto. There is no privity of contract between the intervenor in a suit, already begun by attachment, and the surety in the attachment bond, and he cannot avail himself of the penalty in the bond. An intervenor in a suit commenced by attachment between the original parties, although he succeeds in obtaining judgment, cannot proceed on the attachment bond against the surety for any supposed damages, because he is no party thereto. There is no privity of contract between the intervenor in a' suit, already begun by attachment, and the surely in the attachmentbond, and he cannot avail himself of the penalty in the bond.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE SIXTH PRESIDING. The plaintiff took a rule on the defendant, to show cause why he should not be made liable as surety in an attachment bond. The facts show, that one Miles, in Kentucky, sued out an attachment against William L. Brent, then residing in Attakapas, in a suit on a promissory note of the latter, for two thousand three hundred and fifty dollars, given for the price of slaves. Mr. Brownson was the surety in the attachment bond executed by the plaintiff Miles. While this suit was pending, Raspillier, the present plaintiff intervened and claim-e(j the amount of the note sued on, as having become the purchaser thereof, and entitled to receive the proceeds. After several years litigation, he finally obtained judgment for the net amount of the note, without interest. See case of Miles vs. Oden et als. 8, Martin, N. S. 214. Raspillier now contends that he has sustained damages to the amount of his costs and interest on Brent’s note, and that the attachment bond in the suit of Miles vs. Oden et als., in which Brent was a principal defendant, enured to his benefit. He seeks to fix this liability on the defendant, as surety in said bond. and showed for cause that he could not be rendered liable on the attachment bond in this way; that if liable at all, he could only be made so by a civil suit in the ordinary way of petition and answer. The rule was discharged and the plaintiff appealed. submitted the case without argument, no counsel appearing for the plaintiff.