50 Neb. 894 | Neb. | 1897
This was an action upon an appeal undertaking executed by Henry Otto as principal and the other defendants, Bartling and Kees, as sureties, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff in the district court for Gage county, and from which the defendants therein prosecute error.
The facts essential to an understanding of the decisive question of the controversy are as follows: Otto, the principal defendant, in the month of April, 1889, executed in favor of James W. Graham his two promissory
The recovery by Graham of the property under the mortgage, and the disposition thereof by him, amounted, as we have seen, to a satisfaction of the judgment in the replevin suit, except as to unpaid costs and damages. It follows that the district court erred in permitting the defendants in error to recover upon the replevin bond for the value of their possession as determined in the replevin suit, for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded to that court.
Reversed.