IN THE MATTER OF JOSIAH S. STAFFORD AND JEANNETTE KIRKLAND, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE NEW ORLEANS CANAL AND BANKING COMPANY
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.
Stafford and his wife appealed a district court decree in favor of the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, claiming the appeal bond operated as a supersedeas that stayed execution of the judgment. The Supreme Court ordered a peremptory mandamus directing the district judge to execute the decree, holding that an appellant was not entitled to a supersedeas when the judge failed to take adequate security on the appeal as required. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.
This appeal is subject, in principle, to the objections stated in the above case of Stafford and Wife v. The Union Bank of Louisiana; and, for the reasons stated in that case, a-peremptory mandamus is ordered in this one, to carry into effect the decree entered in the district court. The motion to dismiss this appeal is overruled.
Order. The Honorable John C. Watrous, district judge of the United States for the district of Texas, having failed to file any return to the rule granted at the last term, in this case, requiring him to appear and show cause, if any he had, why a mmdamus should not be awarded, requiring and commanding him to cause the decree rendered by the said court, on the 2d day of March, A. I). 1854, in a cert' in case therein then depending, between the said New Orleans Canal and Banking Company, as complainant, and Josiah S. Stafford and Jeannette Kirkland, his wife, as defendants, to be at once carried into execution, according to the terms thereof, notwithstanding the appeal from said decree taken by the said defendants to this court, and the order of the said court that the appeal bond, filed by the said defendants on the said appeal, operated as a supersedeas to the said decree of the said court; and, after due deliberation thereupon had, it appearing to the court that it was the.duty of the judge, in allowing the appeal, to take security on the appeal in the sum decreed, and, not having ‘done so, that the appellant was not entitled to a supersedeas of any process necessary to carry the decree into execution, and that the judge was bound to issue the proper process, on the application of the. complain ant. It is, therefore, now here directed and ordered by this court, that a mandamus be awarded to the district judge of the United States for the district of Texas, requiring and commanding the said judge forthwith to carry the aforesaid decree of the said district court, of the 2d of March, A. D. 1854, into effect.
After-Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the-record from the district court of the United States for the district of • Texas; and it appearing to the court here that a stipulation, by the' counsel of the respective parties, to dismiss this appeal, at the costs of the appellants, has been filed in this cause, it is thereupon-, on the motion of Mr. Coze, of counsel for the appellee, now here ordered and decreed by this court, that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haskins Bros. & Co. v. Morgenthau, 85 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1936)…he hands of its agent and that, as the court had no power to deal with the sovereign as a party, the court could not deal with the agent or with the property' in the hands of the agent. And in United States ex rel. Goodrich v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284, 15 L.Ed. 102, Justice Daniel, speaking for the court, said the only instances in which the heads of departments of the government can be controlled, are with reference to acts or proceedings not implied in the several and inherent functions and duties incident t…
-
Clackamas Cnty. v. McKAY, 219 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1954)…8, 128 U.S. 40, 9 S.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354 (relating to a pension); United States ex rel. Carrick v. Lamar, 1886, 116 U. S. 423, 6 S.Ct. 424, 29 L.Ed. 677 (to compel a survey); United States ex rel. Goodrich v. Guthrie, 1855, 17 How. 284, 58 U.S. 284, 15 L.Ed. 102 (involving payment of a disputed salary); Decatur v. Paulding, 1840, 14 Pet. 497, 39 U.S. 497, 10 L.Ed. 559 (concerning allowance of a pension). And also see West Coast Exploration Co. v. McKay, 1954, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 307, 213 F. 2d 582. . See Reesi…
-
United States ex rel. Rhodes v. Helvering, 84 F.2d 270 (D.C. Cir. 1936)…answer of appellee should not be disturbed. This conclusion is supported by the following authorities: United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, 203 U.S. 461, 27 S.Ct. 148, 51 L.Ed. 269, and United States ex rel. Aaron Goodrich v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284, 15 L.Ed. 102. Affirmed. STEPHENS, Associate Justice. In so far as the majority opinion concerns the relief sought as against the appellee, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, I concur in the decision that as against the Secretary of the Treasury…