Henry Crane v. Cornelius Buckley, No. 58
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Day |
| Citation | 203 U.S. 441,51 L.Ed. 260,27 S.Ct. 56 |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 58 |
| Parties | HENRY A. CRANE, Plff. in Err., v. CORNELIUS F. BUCKLEY, Rudolph Spreckles, and Timothy Hopkins, Dfts. in Err |
v.
CORNELIUS F. BUCKLEY, Rudolph Spreckles, and Timothy Hopkins, Dfts. in Err.
Messrs. Charles S. Cushing and William Grant for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel intentionally omitted]
Page 442
Mr. Delphin Michael Delmas for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel intentionally omitted]
Page 443
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
This was an action upon a supersedeas bond, brought by the plaintiff in error, Henry A. Crane, against defendants in error, Cornelius F. Buckley, as principal, and Rudolph Spreckles and Timothy Hopkins, as sureties.
The bond was given in an action brought by Crane against Buckley in the superior court of Tulare county, California, removed to the United States circuit court of the southern district of California.
Crane brought suit to foreclose a contract for the sale of certain lands to Buckley and for the recovery of possession thereof. Upon answer and cross bill Buckley made the defense that the sale was procured by false and fraudulent statements and misrepresentations. The court found for complainant, Crane; that the charges of fraud were not sustained; that the rights, interests, and claims of Buckley in and to the property should be foreclosed, subject to the equitable privilege that if Buckley should pay to Crane prior to January 1, 1899, the unpaid portion of the purchase price and the interest thereon, with taxes and costs, Crane should convey to Buckley all the said real estate, pursuant to the agreement of purchase, and it was provided in said decree:
'And unless said respondent shall place of file herein some sufficient and satisfactory evidence that he has paid, or has tendered, and is able, ready, and willing to pay, to said complainant, Henry A. Crane, the amounts of money hereinbefore provided to be paid for the purchase of said property, on or
Page 444
before the 1st day of January, A. D. 1899, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the clerk of this court do, on request of said complainant, Henry A. Crane, or of his counsel, issue a suitable and sufficient order or writ to the marshal of this court, and under the seal thereof, to remove said respondent, Cornelius F. Buckley, from the possession, use, and occupation of said real property, water ditches, water rights, and rights of way, and to place complainant, Henry A. Crane, or his legal representatives, in the exclusive possession, use and occupation thereof.'
This decree was entered on November 16, 1898; on December 16, 1898, Buckley appealed from the decree to the circuit court of appeals, and a supersedeas bond in the sum of $8,000, being the one in suit, was given. This bond is as follows:
'Whereas, the said respondent and cross-complainant is desirous of staying the execution of the said judgment so appealed from in so far as it relates to the possession of the land and premises involved therein, and is desirous of staying the execution of said judgment or decree, so appealed from, in so far as it relates to the costs awarded to complainant therein:
'Now, the condition of the above obligation is such that if the said C. F. Buckley shall prosecute his appeal to effect, and shall answer all damages and costs that have been and shall be awarded against him, if he fails to make his appeal good, and if he shall answer all damages that shall accrue to the said respondent by reason of the value of the use and occupation of the land and premises from the time of said appeal until the delivery of possession thereof to said Henry A. Crane, and for all waste committed thereon, then the above obligation to be void, else to remain in full force and effect.'
October 2, 1899, the circuit court of appeals affirmed the decree. On October 19, 1899, Buckley having filed a petition for rehearing as to a part of the judgment given October 2, 1899, or for such modification thereof as would allow him until November 1, 1899, within which to make the payments required, the circuit court of appeals found:
Page 445
'The record does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison Knudsen v. Ground Improvement, No. 06-1434.
...[the] appeal has not been prosecuted with effect." Gay v. Parpart, 101 U.S. 391, 392, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879); see also Crane v. Buckley, 203 U.S. 441, 447, 27 S.Ct. 56, 51 L.Ed. 260 (1906) (explaining "prosecuting to effect" means "prosecuting his appeal with success; to ma......
-
Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 7:16-CV-18-D
...if the lower court's judgment is "substantially reversed." Gav v.Parpart. 101 U.S. 391, 392 (18791: see Crane v. Buckley. 203 U.S. 441, 447 (1906) ("It is an expression substantially equivalent to prosecuting bis appeal with success; to make substantial and prevailing bis att......
-
W.J. Donnelly Co. v. Fid. & Cas. Co.
...prosecute with success; to make substantial and prevailing the attempt to obtain a judgment in favor of the appellant. Crane v. Buckley, 203 U. S. 441, 27 S. Ct. 56, 51 L. Ed. 260;Schutz v. Swigert (Ariz.) 234 P. 1078;Campbell v. Harrington, 93 Mo. App. 315;Trent v. Rhomberg, 66 Tex. 249, 1......
-
Nat'l Sur. Co v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co
...juris, and not to be extended by implication or enlarged construction of the terms of the contract entered into." Crane v. Buckley, 203 U. S. 441, 27 Sup. Ct. 56, 51 L. Ed. 260. On applying this rule, we see that the judgment named in the terms of the bond is the original judgment of t......
-
Morrison Knudsen v. Ground Improvement, No. 06-1434.
...[the] appeal has not been prosecuted with effect." Gay v. Parpart, 101 U.S. 391, 392, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879); see also Crane v. Buckley, 203 U.S. 441, 447, 27 S.Ct. 56, 51 L.Ed. 260 (1906) (explaining "prosecuting to effect" means "prosecuting his appeal with success; to ma......
-
Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., 7:16-CV-18-D
...if the lower court's judgment is "substantially reversed." Gav v.Parpart. 101 U.S. 391, 392 (18791: see Crane v. Buckley. 203 U.S. 441, 447 (1906) ("It is an expression substantially equivalent to prosecuting bis appeal with success; to make substantial and prevailing bis att......
-
W.J. Donnelly Co. v. Fid. & Cas. Co.
...prosecute with success; to make substantial and prevailing the attempt to obtain a judgment in favor of the appellant. Crane v. Buckley, 203 U. S. 441, 27 S. Ct. 56, 51 L. Ed. 260;Schutz v. Swigert (Ariz.) 234 P. 1078;Campbell v. Harrington, 93 Mo. App. 315;Trent v. Rhomberg, 66 Tex. 249, 1......
-
Nat'l Sur. Co v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co
...juris, and not to be extended by implication or enlarged construction of the terms of the contract entered into." Crane v. Buckley, 203 U. S. 441, 27 Sup. Ct. 56, 51 L. Ed. 260. On applying this rule, we see that the judgment named in the terms of the bond is the original judgment of t......