After his properties were attached, defendant Porfirio filed a sufficient counterbond. The trial court dischrged the attachment. Nonetheless, Porfirio suffered substantial prejudice due to the unwarranted attachment. In the end, the trial court rendered a judgment in Porfirio's favor by ordering the plaintiff to pay damages because the plaintiff was not entitled to the attachment. Profirio moved to charge the plaintiff's attacment bond. The plaintiff and his sureties opposed the motion, claiming that the filing of the counterbond had relieved the plaintiff's attachment bond from all liability for the damages. Rule Porfirio's motion. (4%)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment