13 R.I. 624 | R.I. | 1882
The question is whether a replevin bond, signed in the name of the plaintiff in replevin by another person professing to sign it as the plaintiff's agent, but having no authority so to sign it, is such a bond, if otherwise in due form, as will authorize the service of the writ of replevin, or, if not, whether the bond can be made good retroactively, so as to authorize the maintenance of the action by subsequent ratification. We are very clear that such a bond is not the *626
bond prescribed by statute, and consequently that it will not authorize the service of the writ. The bond required by the statute is a bond with sufficient sureties executed either by the plaintiff or "some one in his behalf." The bond here was not executed by the plaintiff, either in person or by attorney, nor was it executed by any one in his behalf; for the signer merely signed the name of the plaintiff as obligor, signing it as agent when he had no authority, and did not himself sign it as obligor in the plaintiff's behalf. It follows, the bond being prerequisite to valid service, that the service was void.Whitford v. Goodwin, ante, p. 145; Purple v. Purple, 5 Pick. 226; Garlin v. Strickland,
Judgment for defendant abating the writ, with costs.