United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md.

Decision Date08 March 1937
Docket NumberNo. 8285.,8285.
Citation88 F.2d 793
PartiesUNITED STATES v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF BALTIMORE, MD.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

John A. Carver, U. S. Atty., and E. H. Casterlin and Frank Griffin, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Boise, Idaho, for the United States.

Ezra R. Whitla and Emery T. Knudson, both of Cœur d'Alene, Idaho, for appellee.

Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

NETERER, District Judge.

December 11, 1931, appellant obtained a judgment against the Spokane International Railway Company for $21,529.65 and $764.53 costs. The railway company appealed from said judgment to this court. To effectuate the appeal, on motion of the appellant railway company, the trial judge, to meet the requirements of title 28 U.S.C. A. § 869, in allowing the appeal entered the further order: "It is further ordered that the defendant upon said appeal shall give a cost bond to be approved by the Clerk of this Court, in the sum of Three hundred dollars ($300.00)." The appellee became surety on the bond on appeal. The condition of the bond is that the railway company "shall prosecute its appeal to effect and answer all damages and costs if it fails to make said plea good, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue." The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Spokane International R. Co. v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 72 F. (2d) 440. Upon demand for payment of the costs in the trial court, the surety, appellee herein, declined to pay and this action was commenced to recover $300, the amount of the bond, to apply on the cost entailed in the trial of the case. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint in this language: "The bond sued on is a cost bond on appeal only and not liable for any costs incurred in the trial of the case, and that no costs on appeal are claimed as outstanding and unpaid, and that the bond is not liable for the costs incurred in the trial Court and that by reason thereof said Demurrer should be and the same hereby is sustained." Appellant declining to further plead, judgment was entered in dismissal, to reverse which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Six errors are assigned, all of which may be comprehended in the following statement: The court erred (a) in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint; (b) finding that the bond sued on is a cost bond on appeal only and not liable for the costs incurred in the trial court.

The phrasing of the bond upon the record in this case may not control. If the parties had followed the course marked and form suggested in O'Brien's Manual on Federal Procedure, this case would not be here.

The bond in issue was given pursuant to and to meet requirements of the order of the trial court "as a cost bond on appeal only." The obligation of the bond began with appeal. It had no post facto obligation either by order of court, a rule of court, congressional enactment, or state legislative enactment called to our attention. There was no consideration moving to the appellee for such insurance. There is no express or implied act or conduct of the parties to intimate any thought or interest other than that expressed in the trial judge's orders. The hand of appellant in the collection of the judgment was not stayed. Mohn v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. App. 425, 200 P. 360. The order for the bond was limited to costs, etc., on appeal. It did not operate as a stay. Von Zellen v. Stone, 232 Mich. 568, 205 N.W. 482.

The bond must be read in the light of the law and procedure and the order which directed it to be made, and in view of the purposes to be served. Hughes v. Keith (Mo.App.) 267 S.W. 38; Holladay v. Hodge, 103 S.C. 309, 88 S.E. 282. This is the view of the court in Massachusetts Bonding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Martin v. Clarke
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 9 Agosto 1939
    ...the procedure and the order which directed it to be made, and in view of the purpose to be served, United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md., 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 793, 794. It is settled by a long line of cases that, where the judgment is for the recovery of money not otherwise s......
  • Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 1 Mayo 1942
    ...the procedure and the order which directed it to be made, and in view of the purpose to be served, United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Baltimore, Md., 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 793, 794. It is settled by a long line of cases that, where the judgment is for the recovery of money not otherwise s......
  • CENTRAL MANUFACTURING CO. v. BMK CORPORATION
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 10 Marzo 1958
    ... ... Civ. A. No. 1692 ... United States District Court D. Delaware ... March 10, ... The latter case was affirmed under the name of Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Expanded Metal Co., 3 Cir., ... Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Baltimore, 9 Cir., 1937, 88 F.2d 793; The Astoria (City of New York ... ...
  • Clements v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 24 Marzo 1937

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT