Craig v. Leitensdorfer

Supreme Court

Craig v. Leitensdorfer

127 U.S. 764, 8 S. Ct. 1393, 32 L. Ed. 322, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2036

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 16, 1888

Docket1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 U.S. 764 (Craig v. Leitensdorfer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Craig v. Leitensdorfer, 127 U.S. 764, 8 S. Ct. 1393, 32 L. Ed. 322, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2036 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Miller:

An application was made in this case last Monday, for a compulsory process against Mrs. Leann S. King and Thomas J. Allen, and sureties, who signed two bonds for costs in this case.

The circumstances of the case are about these. Craig and Léitensdorfer had been litigating for an immense tract of land in Colorado, and the case had come here by appeal in behalf of Craig against the judgment of the Circuit Court. Shortly after it got here, Craig made an arrangement with Leitensdorfer, or with his executor (for he died during the progress of this long litigation), by which the case was to be closed up by a, consent decree in favor of Craig, or his representatives. He presented that agreement to this court, and asked to have it enforced. At that time Mrs. King and Mr. Allen interposed by their counsel, and protested against this dismissal, saying that they had bought Leitensdorfer?s claim, or parts of it, *771 before he had made this arrangement, and to enforce it would prejudice them. . That motion was heard in this court long enough to have settled a common case. The court said to these parties, if each of you will enter into bonds to pay all costs from this time forward to be adjudged against you, or the appellee, you shall be permitted to intervene and be heard. They were heard and they made all the defence that was made against Craig’s claim. In October last,'this court decided the case in favor of Craig, and against Leitensdorfer’s representatives. The costs were taxed by the clerk, and these parties have neglected to pay them. We are of opinion that they must pay them, and we are of opinion that this court has power, and it is its duty, to enforce the payment' without remitting the payees in these bonds to another suit in some other court. We, therefore, make an order that an attachment issue against Mrs. King and her sureties, and Mr. Allen and his sureties, to compel payment of the amount of the taxed costs, unless they do pay it before the last day of this term.

This is a new question, and a. more elaborate opinion may be submitted before the end of the term, but this order is made now because the parties ought to have an opportunity to pay, and we make the order now that they pay the costs, and that a writ of attachment issue if they do not pay before the end of this tqrm.

It is proper to observe that if the money is not paid the writ of attachment will be returnable to the next term of the court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Miller:

An application was made in this case last Monday, for a compulsory process against Mrs. Leann S. King and Thomas J. Allen, and sureties, who signed two bonds for costs in this case.

The circumstances of the case are about these. Craig and Léitensdorfer had been litigating for an immense tract of land in Colorado, and the case had come here by appeal in behalf of Craig against the judgment of the Circuit Court. Shortly after it got here, Craig made an arrangement with Leitensdorfer, or with his executor (for he died during the progress of this long litigation), by which the case was to be closed up by a, consent decree in favor of Craig, or his representatives. He presented that agreement to this court, and asked to have it enforced. At that time Mrs. King and Mr. Allen interposed by their counsel, and protested against this dismissal, saying that they had bought Leitensdorfer?s claim, or parts of it, *771 before he had made this arrangement, and to enforce it would prejudice them. . That motion was heard in this court long enough to have settled a common case. The court said to these parties, if each of you will enter into bonds to pay all costs from this time forward to be adjudged against you, or the appellee, you shall be permitted to intervene and be heard. They were heard and they made all the defence that was made against Craig’s claim. In October last,'this court decided the case in favor of Craig, and against Leitensdorfer’s representatives. The costs were taxed by the clerk, and these parties have neglected to pay them. We are of opinion that they must pay them, and we are of opinion that this court has power, and it is its duty, to enforce the payment' without remitting the payees in these bonds to another suit in some other court. We, therefore, make an order that an attachment issue against Mrs. King and her sureties, and Mr. Allen and his sureties, to compel payment of the amount of the taxed costs, unless they do pay it before the last day of this term.

This is a new question, and a. more elaborate opinion may be submitted before the end of the term, but this order is made now because the parties ought to have an opportunity to pay, and we make the order now that they pay the costs, and that a writ of attachment issue if they do not pay before the end of this tqrm.

It is proper to observe that if the money is not paid the writ of attachment will be returnable to the next term of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 U.S. 764, 8 S. Ct. 1393, 32 L. Ed. 322, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-leitensdorfer-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack