The sheriff, or other officer, shall not deliver to the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, the property so taken, until there has been executed by one or more sufficient sureties of the plaintiff a written undertaking to the defendant, in at least double the value of the property taken, to the effect that the plaintiff shall duly prosecute the action and pay all costs and damages which may be awarded against him, and return the property to the defendant, in case judgment for a return of such property is rendered against him. The undertaking shall be returned with the order.
If, before the actual delivery to the plaintiff, the defendant executes within twenty-four hours from the time of the levy, by one or more sufficient sureties a written undertaking to the plaintiff, in at least double the value of the property, to the effect that the defendant shall duly defend the action and pay all costs and damages which may be awarded against him, and deliver the property to the plaintiff, in case judgment for delivery of such property is rendered against him, the undertaking shall be returned with the order by the officer, who shall return the property to the defendant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case:
Barelmann v. Fox, 478 N.W.2d 548 (Neb. 1992).
Barelmann v. Fox, 478 N.W.2d 548 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Barelmanns claim that the district court improvidently struck their assertions that the bank failed to make an appropriate demand before instituting this action, levied on exempt property, and refused to execute a lien waiver on a corn crop maturing after the replevin action was…”
Jacob v. Schlichtman, 622 N.W.2d 852 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 13× “” The district court opined that “[apparently [Jacob] is of the belief that Lancaster County should be responsible for the bond (replevin) required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1098 (Reissue 1995) and that such a bond is ‘security’ as set forth in Neb.”
Lewis Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Mack Fin. Corp., an Ohio Corp., 696 F.2d 66 (8th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1098 . 5 . We find it unnecessary and therefore decline, in the absence of a state court decision, to construe the temporary order provision as requiring a bond pursuant to Neb.”
Stockmens Bank v. Double H P'ship (D. Neb. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff is required to post bond to the Clerk of Court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1098 in the amount of $350,000.”
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.