Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford

E.D. Pennsylvania

Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford

177 F. 604, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5336

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 3, 1910

DocketNo. 14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 F. 604 (Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 177 F. 604, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5336 (E.D. Pa. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

HOEEAND, District Judge.

This was a rule on the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland to show cause why judgment should not be had and execution issued against it as surety on the appeal bond. The Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland was the surety on the defendant’s bond for costs, on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The bond is in the sum of $500. The costs in the Circuit Court of Appeals amount to $185, and the costs in the Circuit Court are $257.61. The total for which the complainant contends the Surety Company is liable is $442.61. The latter, however, insists that it is only liable for the amount of the costs in the Circuit Court of Appeals, to wit, $185, and that the costs incurred in the court below are not covered by the bond.

There are decisions both ways, but it is not an open question in this District, as Judge McPherson, in the case of Joseph Punter et al. v. Schooner Joseph. B. Thomas, 158 Fed. 559, in the District Court, in admiralty (No. 2 of 1904), held that the surety on a bond given on an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals is liable for the costs in the court below. So long as there is no decision to the contrary by the Circuit Court.of Appeals of this Circuit, the view taken by Judge McPherson will be followed.

The rule, therefore, is made absolute. Judgment awarded against the Surety Company for the sum of $442.61, and execution permitted to be issued by the complainant for the collection of the same.

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

HOEEAND, District Judge.

This was a rule on the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland to show cause why judgment should not be had and execution issued against it as surety on the appeal bond. The Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland was the surety on the defendant’s bond for costs, on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The bond is in the sum of $500. The costs in the Circuit Court of Appeals amount to $185, and the costs in the Circuit Court are $257.61. The total for which the complainant contends the Surety Company is liable is $442.61. The latter, however, insists that it is only liable for the amount of the costs in the Circuit Court of Appeals, to wit, $185, and that the costs incurred in the court below are not covered by the bond.

There are decisions both ways, but it is not an open question in this District, as Judge McPherson, in the case of Joseph Punter et al. v. Schooner Joseph. B. Thomas, 158 Fed. 559, in the District Court, in admiralty (No. 2 of 1904), held that the surety on a bond given on an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals is liable for the costs in the court below. So long as there is no decision to the contrary by the Circuit Court.of Appeals of this Circuit, the view taken by Judge McPherson will be followed.

The rule, therefore, is made absolute. Judgment awarded against the Surety Company for the sum of $442.61, and execution permitted to be issued by the complainant for the collection of the same.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 F. 604, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/expanded-metal-co-v-bradford-paed-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack