« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Statement of the Case.
present writ would be to make a new writ and not to amend the present one, and would necessitate a new bond and citation.
But even if the amendment be within the discretion of the court it should not be granted.
Per Curiam. (January 6, 1890): The motion to rescind the judgment of dismissal, entered November 4, 1889; to restore the cause to the docket; and to amend the writ of error herein by inserting therein, as plaintiffs in error, the names of Henry A. Willard, John W. Thompson, Samuel Norment and J. H. Baxter is
Granted and case returned to the docket.
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Arthur A. Birney and Mr. Charles C. Cole for defendant in error.
No. 181. Submitted January 23, 1890. - Decided February 3, 1890.
Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488, affirmed and applied to this case.
The United States, being the real party interested as plaintiffs in error, by their counsel filed the following statement as a brief for the plaintiff in error:
“ This is an action of ejectment, brought in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, and afterwards removed into the United States Circuit Court, to recover a large body of swamp and overflowed lands contiguous to the mainland of Mare Island, upon which island the United States have a navy-yard, and have erected extensive buildings, etc.
“ The plaintiff in error, the defendant below, was the officer
Statement of the Case.
in command of the said navy-yard at the time the suit was brought, and had no other interest in the controversy.
“ The case was tried without a jury, under a stipulation in writing, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, to the effect that they were entitled to the possession of the lands in controversy.
“This writ of error raises but one question.
“The plaintiffs claimed title to the swamp and overflowed lands in question, under the State of California, and introduced in evidence a patent from the State to one John W. Pearson, from whom they derived title.
“ This evidence was objected to by the defendant on the ground: “That a patent issued by the State to any individual for swamp or overflowed lands does not convey title to the lands therein described, unless it be shown that the same lands have been patented by the United States to the State, or listed to the State by the Land Department of the United States. That it has not been shown by competent evidence that it has been determined by the proper authority of the Land Department of the United States that the lands described in the patent, or any part thereof, are swamp or overflowed lands within the meaning of the act of Congress approved September 28, 1850, commonly known as the Arkansas land act.'
“The objection was overruled and the patent read to the jury, whereupon the defendant excepted.
“The plaintiffs then introduced other evidence, parol and documentary, for the purpose of showing that the land sued for answered to the description of swamp and overflowed lands, and the defendant moved the court to strike out and exclude all said evidence, including the patent, but the court denied the motion, and thereupon the defendant excepted.
“The opinion of the eminent Circuit Justice upon the questions raised by the bill of exceptions, appears to be sustained by the subsequent opinion of this court in Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488.
“The case is, therefore, submitted without further observa
Statement of the Case.
Per Curiam. It is conceded by counsel for plaintiff in error that this case is governed by Wright v. Roseberry, 121 C. S. 488, and the judgment is, therefore, upon the authority of that case,
Affirmeil. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for plaintiff in error.
Glenn v. Fant, 134 C. S. 398; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192;
Aniles v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435; and Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, affirmed and applied to the stipulation filed in this case by counsel, the jury being waived.
This was an action to recover on bonds and coupons issued by the defendant, a municipal corporation, in aid of the construction of a railroad. The record contained the following stipulation “as to facts, etc.” being signed by the counsel :
“It is stipulated in the matter of Charles Davenport v. The Town of Paris, in assumpsit, now pending in the U. S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois, that the instruments sued on, being bonds numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 31, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80, with coupons now attached, which purport to be the bonds of the town of Paris, were signed, respectively, by Henry Van Sellar and James A. Dittoe on the dates of said instruments, and that the said llenry Van Sellar was on that date supervisor of said town of Paris, and that the said James A. Dittoe was on said date the town clerk of said town of Paris.
“It is also agreed that a jury is waived in said matter. The above coupons are as are as follows: 61 of series 8, 9 and 10 and 51 of series 7, being 234 coupons.
“It is further stipulated that said bonds and coupons are identical in character with the bonds and coupons in the matter of Skinner v. Town of East Oakland, tried in this court and appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, tried there and reported in 94 U. S. 255, and issued in same manner, the only difference being that these bonds and coupons were issued by the town of Paris instead of the town of East Oakland.
“In case of appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court this case may be submitted under rule 20 on written briefs."
Judgment below for the defendant, to review which the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Mr. George A. Sanders for plaintiff in error.
Mr. R. B. Lamon for defendant in error.
Per CURIAM. The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435; and Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, and cases cited.
MASON v. UNITED STATES.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 214. Submitted May 5, 1890. - Decided May 19, 1890.
A postmaster and the sureties on his official bond being sued jointly for a
breach of the bond, he and a part of the sureties appeared and defended; the suit was abated as to one of the sureties who had died; and the other sureties made default, and judgment of default was entered against them.
Statement of the Case.
On the trial a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, whereupon judgment was entered against the principal and all the sureties for the amount of the verdict. The sureties who had appeared sued out a writ of error to this judgment without joining the principal or the sureties who had made default. The plaintiff in error moved to amend the writ of error by adding the omitted parties as plaintiffs in error, or for a severance of those parties; Held, that the motion must be denied.
This was an action against the postmaster of Chicago and the sureties upon his official bond, the alleged breach being that he had not accounted to the United States for large sums of money received by him from the sale of postage stamps and other sources connected with the postal service. The principal defence was that the moneys had been deposited in a bank which had failed, and which was a designated depositary of public moneys. The process was against the postmaster and seven of the sureties, jointly. Two of the sureties died before trial, and the suit was abated as to them. Two appeared, and, together with the postmaster, went to trial in defence. The default of the remaining three sureties was taken before proceeding to trial. The jury assessed the damages at $116,559.14, and judgment was entered therein against all the remaining parties impleaded, (the postmaster and five sureties,) “ and that the United States have execution thereof." To this judgment two of the sureties sued out a writ of error, without joining the other parties, or summons and severance.
The case was reached on the docket on the 19th of March, 1890. The counsel for plaintiffs in error commenced the opening of the case; but the court, upon examination of the record, declined to hear further argument for the present, and ordered the case to be passed.
On the 5th of May, 1890, the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, made the following motion :
“And now comes Carlisle Mason, John Alston, John McArthur, James Steele, Thomas S. Dobbins and Solomon McKichan, who, jointly, and severally, move for leave to amend the writ of error by inserting therein their names, they being all of the defendants in the judgment rendered by the