Mexican Construction Co. v. Reusens

Supreme Court

Mexican Construction Co. v. Reusens

118 U.S. 49, 6 S. Ct. 945, 30 L. Ed. 77, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1899

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 23, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 U.S. 49 (Mexican Construction Co. v. Reusens) 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

Mexican Construction Co. v. Reusens, 118 U.S. 49, 6 S. Ct. 945, 30 L. Ed. 77, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1899 (1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is denied on the authority of Jerome v. M ’Carter, 21 Wall. 17. Neither the circumstances of the case, nor of the parties, nor of the sureties on the bond have changed since the security was taken. All these things are now as they were then.

We do not understand the case of Nichols v. MacLean, 98 N. Y. 458, to decide that the guarantee by the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, of the undertaking of the Mexican National Construction Company for a discharge of the attachment, is void because signed by one surety and not by two; but only that it need not have been accepted by the *54 judge as sufficient security. It was accepted, however, and the attachment was discharged. It stands, therefore, as security for the payment of the judgment, and the judge, when he took the supersedeas bond, acted with reference to a judgment which was “otherwise secured” within the meaning of- Rule 29, and could be governed accordingly. The present motion is not made because the condition of the Fidelity Company has changed since the security was taken, but because another surety ought to have been required before the attachment was discharged. This was one of the facts existing at the time the security was accepted, and, therefore, under the rule in Jerome v. M' Carter, not open to consideration here for the purposes of a review of the action of the judge who fixed the amount.

Denied.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is denied on the authority of Jerome v. M ’Carter, 21 Wall. 17. Neither the circumstances of the case, nor of the parties, nor of the sureties on the bond have changed since the security was taken. All these things are now as they were then.

We do not understand the case of Nichols v. MacLean, 98 N. Y. 458, to decide that the guarantee by the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, of the undertaking of the Mexican National Construction Company for a discharge of the attachment, is void because signed by one surety and not by two; but only that it need not have been accepted by the *54 judge as sufficient security. It was accepted, however, and the attachment was discharged. It stands, therefore, as security for the payment of the judgment, and the judge, when he took the supersedeas bond, acted with reference to a judgment which was “otherwise secured” within the meaning of- Rule 29, and could be governed accordingly. The present motion is not made because the condition of the Fidelity Company has changed since the security was taken, but because another surety ought to have been required before the attachment was discharged. This was one of the facts existing at the time the security was accepted, and, therefore, under the rule in Jerome v. M' Carter, not open to consideration here for the purposes of a review of the action of the judge who fixed the amount.

Denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 U.S. 49, 6 S. Ct. 945, 30 L. Ed. 77, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mexican-construction-co-v-reusens-scotus-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack