WILLIAMS
v.
CLAFLIN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dispute over the sufficiency of security posted on appeal in a railroad company debt collection case, the Supreme Court held that when circumstances materially change after an appeal bond is accepted—such as the dismissal of a competing appeal that had stayed execution—the court may modify the supersedeas to adjust the security requirements as justice demands. The Court modified the supersedeas to permit sale of the mortgaged property while requiring the lower court to retain sufficient proceeds to cover the appellants' remaining debt after their proportionate share from the decree bonds was applied.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered tbe opinion of the court.
In Jerome v. McCarter (21 Wall. 17), we said that if, after security on an appeal which operated as a supersedeas bad been accepted, tbe circumstances of tbe case, or of tbe parties, or of tbe sureties on tbe bond, bad changed, so that tbe security, which at tbe time it was taken was sufficient, did not continue to be so, we might, on proper application, so adjudge and order as justice should require. The present appellants are interested only in preserving their security for a debt of tbe railroad company amounting, when tbe decree was rendered, to about $152,000. When they took their appeal, execution of tbe whole decree bad been stayed by another appeal of tbe present appellees, who were tbe complainants below.
Consequently the amount of security to be given then by these appellants was a matter of but little importance comparatively. Tbe other appeal has been dismissed, and in this way the circumstances of the ease are materially changed. It is easy to see that what was sufficient security on this appeal when taken is probably not so now. ' The bonds secured by the mortgage according to the decree amount to several millions of dollars, and the value of the security is necessarily subject to the fluctuations of trade. The appellants are to a considerable extent interested in the same bonds, but if their debt is paid in full they cannot complain at the execution of the decree.-
The supersedeas herein will be so far modified as to allow a sale of the mortgaged property to be made under the decree, but the court below will retain in its registry, subject to the order of this court until the final determination of the present appeal, so much of the proceeds as shall be sufficient to satisfy and discharge any balance that may remain of the debt due these appellants, after the proportionate share they receive under , the decree upon the bonds and coupons held by them as collateral shall have been applied thereon ; and it is
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Tampa St. Ry. & Power Co. v. The Tampa Suburban R.R. Co., 30 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1892)…een obtained, in respect thereto, in a manner that will amount to a fraud in law, his action is conclusive. Jerome vs. McCarter, 21 Wall, 17 ; Martin vs. Hazard Powder Co., 93, U. S. 302; Railroad Co. vs. Schulte, 100 U. S. 644 Williams vs. Clafiin, 103 U. S. 753. It may be stated as a rule that when a judge approves the sureties on a bond, upon representations that they are worth the amount of the bond over exemptions and liabilities, and such representations are shown not only to have been false, but of su…
-
The Fla. Orange Hedge Fence Co. v. A. G. Branham & Co., 32 Fla. 289 (Fla. 1893)
Authorities Cited
- Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17 (U.S. 1874)