CATLETT
v.
BRODIE
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 Catlett v. Brodie, the Supreme Court interpreted the Judiciary Act of 1789 to require that security bonds posted by judges when allowing writs of error must be sufficient to cover the entire amount of the judgment at issue, not merely anticipated court costs and damages for delay. The Court held that "damages" in the statute refers to all losses the defendant would sustain if the judgment were affirmed and not satisfied, and reversed the dismissal of the case on condition that the plaintiff provide adequate bond within thirty days to secure the full judgment amount.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the Court:
A motion has been made to dismiss this, and several, other suits, unless' the plaintiff in error shall give new bonds for the prosecution of the writ, within a limited period, to be fixed by the Court, upon the ground that the writs of error have been allowed by the Judges of the Circuit, Court for the Dis ict of Columbia, upon bonds being given in. small sums to respond the damages and costs, the debts secured by the judgments being, very much larger. The judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20. s. 22. requires every Judge or Justice, signing a citation on . a writ of error, to take good and sufficient áecu-rity that the plaintiff in error “ shall prosecute his writ to effect, and answer all damages and costs, j,e f"aijs tQ make, his plea good.” A writ of error lodged in the Clerk’s office, within ten days after the rendition of judgment, operates as a supersedeas of execution; and the question arises, whether, in cases where it operates as a super-sedeas, the security taken by the Judge or Justice ought not to be sufficient to secure the whole amount of the judgment.
It has been supposed at the argument, that the act meant only to., provide for such damages and costs as the Court should adjudge for the delay. Blit our opinion is, that this is not the true interpretation of the language. The word “ damages” is here used, not as descriptive of the nature of the claim upon which the original judgment is founded, but as descriptive of the indemnity which the defendant is entitled to, if the judgment is affirmed. Whatever losses he may sustain by the judgment’s not being satisfied and paid, after the affirmance, these are the damages which he has sustained, and for which the bond ought to give good and sufficient security.. Upon any suit brought on such bond* it follows, of course, that the obligors are at liberty to show that no damages have been sustained, or partial damages only; and for such amount only is the obligee entitled to judgment.
In the present case, and in the. other cases which are in the game predicament, the Court directs that these suits stand dismissed, unless the plaintiff in error shall give good and sufficient .security to an amount to secure the whole judgments, on which the writs are brought, within thirty days, from the rising of this Court, such security to be taken and approved by any Judge or Justice by whom a writ of error or citation may be allowed.
Order. It is ordered by the Court, on motion offMr. Key, of counsel for the defendant in error, that this cause do stand dismissed, unless the plaintiff in error shall, within thirty days from the rising of this Court, give a bond, with good and sufficient security, in due form of law, to prosecute his writ with effect, and to answer all damages and costs, if he fail to make his plea good; the amount of such security to be sufficient to secure the whole judgment, in case the same shall, be affirmed, and be not otherwise discharged; such security to be taken and approved by any Judge or Justice who is authorized to allow a writ of er7 ror and citation on the said judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Farish Carter v. Archibald T. Bennett, 5 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1853)
-
Am. Cas. Co. of Reading v. PAN Am. Bank OF Miami, 156 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…on an appeal bond was only liable for interest to the extent of the penal sum in the bond where the total interest due exceeded such penal sum.” 'See the following cases in support of this statement: Catlett v. Brodie, 1824, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 553, 6 L.Ed. 158; Stolar v. Turner, 1947, 238 Iowa 1168, 29 N.W. 2d 417; Anthony v. Warren, 1948, 28 Wash.2d 773, 184 P. 2d 105, 190 P. 2d 88; The Wanata, 1877, 95 U.S. 600, 24 L.Ed. 461; Ives v. Merchants’ Bank of Boston, 1843, 12 How. (53 U.S.) 159, 13 L.Ed. 936;…
-
Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1895)…of error, may direct that the writ be dismissed, unless the plaintiff in error gives security sufficient in this respect, to be taken and approved by any justice or judge who is authorized to allow the writ of error and citation. Catlett v. Brodie, 9 Wheat. 553, 555; O'Reilly v. Edrington, 96 U. S. 724. [*288] This court, in the lawful exercise of its power to prescribe the forms of pi’ocess and to regulate the practice upon writs of error, has said, in paragraph .2 of Rule 36, that, in the case of a convi…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence