Nichols v. United States, 2141.
Decision Date | 01 November 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 2141.,2141. |
Parties | NICHOLS v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Charles A. Kiernan, of Providence, R. I. (Daniel T. Hagan, of Providence, R. I., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Russell P. Jones, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Providence, R. I. (John S. Murdock, U. S. Atty., of Providence, R. I., on the brief), for the United States.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
The question in this case is whether Nichols is liable as surety as a bail bond. Dewey M. Parker was indicted for conspiracy to import, transport, etc., liquor, and to bribe the Coast Guard. He was arrested. On April 9, 1926, he was ordered to recognize in the sum of $5,000. Bail was taken in open court, in two separate recognizances for $2,500 each, in both of which Parker was principal — one with Nichols as surety, and the other with the Southern Surety Company as surety. The first applicable docket entry is as follows: The next pertinent docket entry reads: On December 6, 1926, Parker was called for trial and made default. Thereupon Nichols and the Columbia Casualty Company were called in open court, and a default entered against each. A writ of scire facias was issued, returnable forthwith. Judgment was entered against the Columbia Casualty Company and paid. Nichols defended, but was held liable.
Nichols' main contention, and the only one we find it necessary to consider, is that Parker's surrender by the Southern Surety Company ended all liability of both sureties under the original bailment. We think this contention is well grounded.
While sureties on a bail bond have certain rights over the principal which do not accrue under an ordinary suretyship, the familiar rule of strict construction applies. Reese v. United States, 9 Wall. 13, 21, 19 L. Ed. 541. The doctrine is stated by the Supreme Court in Smith v. United States, 2 Wall. 219, 235, 17 L. Ed. 788, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co.
...discharges the surety from its obliwealth, supra, 192 Ky. at 712, 234 S.W. gations on the bond. Miller v. Common-307. Nichols v. United States, 22 F.2d 8, 9 (1st Cir. 1927). See Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 85, 25 S.Ct. 573, 49 L.Ed. 950 (1905); Miller v. State, 158 Ala. 73, 75, 48 So. ......
-
State v. Liakas, 34211
...beyond the strict scope of his engagement. Once a surety is discharged, liability cannot be revived without his consent. Nichols v. United States, 1 Cir., 22 F.2d 8; Reese v. United States, supra; People v. Meyers, 215 Cal. 115, 8 P.2d 837; State ex rel. Vigg v. Romaine, 47 Okl. 138, 148 P.......
-
Haggerty v. Iannacci, 962745
... ... State v. Doyal, 12 La.App. 653, 654 ... (1857). See also Nichols v. United States, 22 F.2d ... 8, (1st Cir. 1927); Spooner v. Smith, 67 ... ...
-
Avery v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
... ... This is a petition for review of a decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals ... Petitioner, Thomas J ... ...