Martin v. Hazard Powder Co.

93 U.S. 302
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice

Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

We held in Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17, after much consideration, that if, “after the security has been accepted, the circumstances of the case, or of the parties, or of the sureties upon the bond, have changed, so that security which, at the time it was taken, was good and sufficient, does not continue to be so, we might, upon a proper application, so adjudge and order as justice might require. But upon facts existing at the time the security was accepted, the action of the justice, within the statute and the rules of practice adopted for his guidance, is final.”

The showing made in this case does not satisfy us that the alleged insufficiency of the security taken when the writ of error was sued out, arises from any change in the circumstances of the sureties since the acceptance and approval of the bond.

Motion denied.

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

Martin v. Hazard Powder Co., 93 U.S. 302 (1876).

93 U.S. 302 (Martin v. Hazard Powder Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Craig v. Ingham Circuit Judge
137 N.W. 117 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Standard Stopper Co.
136 F. 184 (Second Circuit, 1904)
O'Reilly v. Edrington
96 U.S. 724 (Supreme Court, 1878)