(a) When an action is commenced for the recovery of personal chattels in specie, if the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney makes affidavit that the property sued for belongs to the plaintiff and executes a bond in such sum and with such surety as may be approved by the clerk, with condition that if the plaintiff fails in the action, he will pay the defendant all such costs and damages as he may sustain by the wrongful complaint, it is the duty of the clerk to endorse on the summons that the sheriff is required to take the property mentioned in the complaint into his possession unless the defendant gives bond payable to the plaintiff, with sufficient surety, in double the value of the property, with condition that if the defendant fails in the action he will, within 30 days thereafter, deliver the property to the plaintiff and pay all costs and damages which may accrue from the detention thereof.
(b) If the defendant neglects for five days to give such bond, the property sued for must be delivered to the plaintiff on his giving bond, with sufficient surety, in double the value of the property, payable to the defendant, with condition to deliver the property to the defendant within 30 days after judgment in case he fails in the action and to pay all damages for the detention of the property and costs of the action. If the plaintiff fails to give such bond for five days after the expiration of the time allowed the defendant, the property must be returned to the defendant.
(Code 1852, §§2192, 2193; Code 1867, §§2593, 2594; Code 1876, §§2942, 2943; Code 1886, §§2717, 2718; Code 1896, §§1474, 1475; Code 1907, §§3778, 3780; Code 1923, §§7389, 7391; Code 1940, T. 7, §§918, 920.)
Notes of Decisions
Indus. Tech. v. Jacobs Bank, 872 So. 2d 819 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 4× “by complying with statutory detinue requirements provided by [Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-250]." The trial court granted the motion only insofar as it related to punitive damages, and it vacated the punitive-damages award.”
Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Garrett (In Re Garrett), 185 B.R. 620 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiffs action is based on the law of detinue and governed by § 6-6-250 et seq., Alabama Code (1975). Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 64(b) sets forth the procedure for prejudgment seizure when the action is for the recovery or possession of specific personal property in…”
Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 634 F. Supp. 1520 (N.D. Ala. 1986).
· cites it 4× “If Preuit & Mauldin’s lawyer had read Rule 64(b) and the committee comments, he would have read, inter alia: When the action is for recovery or possession of specific personal property under the detinue statute (Code of Ala. § 6-6-250, et. seq.) or any other provision of law…”
Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Humble, 532 F. Supp. 703 (M.D. Ala. 1982).
· cites it 2× “64; Ala.Code § 6-6-250 (1975), but at the hearing on GECC’s request for an interlocutory order both parties agreed that Humble could maintain possession of the mobile homes upon the condition that the proceeds from any sales would be held in trust pending this Court’s ruling.”
Rogers v. Cace, Inc., 533 So. 2d 245 (Ala. 1988).
· cites it 6× “They also argue that if the trial judge, in his findings, considered the likelihood of CaCe’s success on the merits of their action, in determining whether the order of seizure should be granted, then he violated the rule and spirit of Code of Alabama 1975, § 6-6-250, and A.”
Jay Pontiac GMC Truck Mitsubishi, Inc. v. Payne, 741 So. 2d 398 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 6× “) In May 1997, Jay Pontiac filed a detinue action pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-250, seeking recovery of the new car, or, in the alternative, damages from Payne in the amount of the sales price of the new car, and compensatory damages for lost use of, and damage to, the new…”
BMO Bank, N.A. v. Gilmore Trucking LLC, et al. (M.D. Ala. 2026).
· cites it 2× “See Ala. Code §§ 6-6-250 ; ALA. R. CIV. P. 64 committee’s notes to 1973 adoption (“[T]he requirement of posting a bond as a necessary step in obtaining pre-judgment seizure .”
— Ala. Code § 6-6-250(b) — 1 case
Rogers v. Cace, Inc., 533 So. 2d 245 (Ala. 1988).
“They also argue that if the trial judge, in his findings, considered the likelihood of CaCe’s success on the merits of their action, in determining whether the order of seizure should be granted, then he violated the rule and spirit of Code of Alabama 1975, § 6-6-250, and A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.