Martin v. Hazard Powder Co.
This text of 93 U.S. 302 (Martin v. Hazard Powder Co.) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
93 U.S. 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-hazard-powder-co-scotus-1876.