Seward v. Corneau

102 U.S. 161, 26 L. Ed. 86, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2016
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 25, 1880·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice- Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The bond in this case is insufficient in form either for the purposes of a supersedeas or an appeal, inasmuch as it contains no security for costs. This, however, does not'necessarily avoid the appeal; but-we may impose such terms on the appellants for the omission as, under the circumstances, shall seem to be proper. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed, unless the appellants, on or before the first Monday in January next, give bond, with good and sufficient security, in due form of law, to prosecute their appeal to effect, and to answer all damages and costs if they fail to make their plea good; the bond to be in the penal sum of $1,000, and the security taken and approved by the justice of this court assigned to the fifth circuit; and it is

So ordered.

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

Seward v. Corneau, 102 U.S. 161, 26 L. Ed. 86, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2016 (1880).

102 U.S. 161 (Seward v. Corneau) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oliver Aresti v. Soto
57 P.R. 407 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1940)
Clark v. Bank of Union
78 S.E. 785 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1913)
Jahn v. Champagne Lumber Co.
157 F. 407 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin, 1908)
Schrot v. Schoenfeld
23 App. D.C. 421 (D.C. Circuit, 1904)
Henderson v. Indiana Trust Co.
40 N.E. 516 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Lyons-Thomas Hardware Co. v. Perry Stove Manufacturing Co.
22 L.R.A. 802 (Texas Supreme Court, 1893)
Vance v. McNabb Coal, Etc., Co.
92 Tenn. 47 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1892)
Consolidated Tank Line Co. v. Kansas City Varnish Co.
45 F. 7 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1891)
Ferguson v. Dent
29 F. 1 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1886)
Deford, Hinkle & Co. v. Mehaffy
13 F. 481 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1882)