Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 U.S. 161

Seward v. Corneau

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 1, 1880

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1880-10

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. This suit, brought in a State court of Louisiana, to enjoin a proceeding known as an order of seizure and sale, was, on the petition of the complainants, removed to the Circuit Court, where, on a final hearing, their bill was dismissed.

2 counsel of record

Relies on Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · Davidson v. Lanier

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Death”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 6–0 · Decided 1880-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1985

2 state decisions

5018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1A bond is not sufficient for the purposes of either an appeal to' this court or a supersedeas, if the obligors are not thereby bound for the payment of costs, should the appellant fail to make his plea good.

¶2Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit United States · Case Law">Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.

¶3This suit, brought in a State court of Louisiana, to enjoin a proceeding known as an order of seizure and sale, was, on the petition of the complainants, removed to the Circuit Court, where, on a final hearing, their bill was dismissed. From the decree they prayed for an appeal, which was allowed, with an *162order that it' should “ operate as a supersedeas and stay of execution until the final decree of the Supreme Court should be rendered therein, on the complainants gi , ing bond in the sum of $1,000.”

¶4The bond given was approved by the district judge. It is subject to the condition that we, the appellants, “ will well and truly pay to the said defendants in said appeal 'and suit all such damages as they may recover against us in case it should be decided that the said appeal was wrongfully obtained.”

¶5The appellees now move to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the bond does not conform to the requirements of the statute or to the twenty-ninth rule of this court.

¶6Mr. JEdwin T. Merrick and Mr. .George W. liaee in support of the motion.

¶7Mr. John D. McPherson and Mr. Calderon Carlisle, contra.

¶8Mr. Chief Justice- Waite

¶9delivered the opinion of the court.

¶10The bond in this case is insufficient in form either for the purposes of a supersedeas or an appeal, inasmuch as it contains no security for costs. This, however, does not'necessarily avoid the appeal; but-we may impose such terms on the appellants for the omission as, under the circumstances, shall seem to be proper. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed, unless the appellants, on or before the first Monday in January next, give bond, with good and sufficient security, in due form of law, to prosecute their appeal to effect, and to answer all damages and costs if they fail to make their plea good; the bond to be in the penal sum of $1,000, and the security taken and approved by the justice of this court assigned to the fifth circuit; and it is

¶11So ordered.

/102/us/161 · .json · Public domain