Merryfield v. Jones

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

Merryfield v. Jones

17 F. Cas. 144, 2 Curt. 306

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

DecidedMay 15, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 17 F. Cas. 144 (Merryfield v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Merryfield v. Jones, 17 F. Cas. 144, 2 Curt. 306 (circtdma 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

CURTIS, Circuit Justice.

It is not incident to the general powers of a court of equity to proceed against the principals and sureties on such a bond, and enforce payment of the damages secured by its condition, by a decree. It would be a convenient, and, perhaps, a proper power, to be conferred on the courts of the United States by congress. In Hiriart v. Ballon, 9 Pet. [34 U. S.] 156, it was held that by virtue of a rule of the state courts of Louisiana, adopted under the act of congress of May 26, 1824 (4 Stat. 62), by the circuit court of the United States, there might be a summary judgment against the principal and sureties in an appeal bond at law. The objection that a suit on a bond is, in its nature, a suit at the common law, and so that a right to a trial by jury is conferred by the seventh amendment of the constitution, seems not to have been overlooked in that case; though how far it was considered does not appear. If not determined, it is a grave question, Gwin v. Breedlove, 2 How. [43 U. S.] 29; Gwin v. Martin, 6 How. [47 U. S.] 7. But I do not find it necessary to consider it, in this case, because I am clearly of opinion, that aside from positive legislation, a court of equity does not afford a remedy on such bonds. It must be sought by an action at law. Bean v. Heath, 12 How. [53 U. S.] 168. Motion denied.

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

CURTIS, Circuit Justice.

It is not incident to the general powers of a court of equity to proceed against the principals and sureties on such a bond, and enforce payment of the damages secured by its condition, by a decree. It would be a convenient, and, perhaps, a proper power, to be conferred on the courts of the United States by congress. In Hiriart v. Ballon, 9 Pet. [34 U. S.] 156, it was held that by virtue of a rule of the state courts of Louisiana, adopted under the act of congress of May 26, 1824 (4 Stat. 62), by the circuit court of the United States, there might be a summary judgment against the principal and sureties in an appeal bond at law. The objection that a suit on a bond is, in its nature, a suit at the common law, and so that a right to a trial by jury is conferred by the seventh amendment of the constitution, seems not to have been overlooked in that case; though how far it was considered does not appear. If not determined, it is a grave question, Gwin v. Breedlove, 2 How. [43 U. S.] 29; Gwin v. Martin, 6 How. [47 U. S.] 7. But I do not find it necessary to consider it, in this case, because I am clearly of opinion, that aside from positive legislation, a court of equity does not afford a remedy on such bonds. It must be sought by an action at law. Bean v. Heath, 12 How. [53 U. S.] 168. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. Cas. 144, 2 Curt. 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merryfield-v-jones-circtdma-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack