| Idaho | Feb 25, 1885
This action is founded upon an undertaking given in an attachment suit brought by these plaintiffs against Phelan & Ferguson. The undertaking was given for the release from attachment of the property which had been seized by the attachment issued in the case, as the property of said Phelan & Ferguson, to secure the payment of any judgment which might be recovered in the action against them. By the undertaking the defendants promised that, in case the plaintiffs recovered judgment against Phelan & Ferguson in the action, they (Phelan & Ferguson) would, on demand, redeliver the property so released from the attachment to the proper officer, to be applied to the payment of the judgment, and that in default thereof these defendants would, on demand, pay to the plaintiffs the full value of the property released, not exceeding the sum of $1,150. In the attachment suit judgment was recovered against Phelan & Ferguson on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1S83, and remained unsatisfied. This .action was commenced on the seventeenth day of April, 1884. A general demurrer to the complaint was interposed in the trial court and overruled.
On the seventh day of June, 1884, the defendants filed an answer which alleged that the action in which the undertaking was given was prematurely brought upon a promissory note not due, and that on the twentieth day of May, 1884, an appeal was duly taken to the supreme court from the judgment of May 25, 1883, and that an undertaking was given on said appeal. On motion of the plaintiffs, the answer was stricken from the files as irrelevant, and the defendants were given one day to answer. On the next day thereafter, defendants declining to answer, a judgment was rendered against them, as demanded by the complaint. To the ruling of the court striking the answer from the files, and also to the entry of the judgment, the defendants excepted, and present these questions by a bill of exceptions for the consideration of this court. We do not think the exceptions well taken.
The answer did not aver that an undertaking had been given to stay the execution of the judgment, nor did it allege any facts that constituted a defense to the action, and we think it was properly stricken from the files. The questions raised by
Order and judgment affirmed.