Case ID: mass_11/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel C. Bacon versus William Otis and Others.
    Upon a bond given to prosecute a writ of error in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon a judgment rendered in this Court, the obligee will recover the amount for which judgment was given in the Court of Error, on affirmation of the former judgment.
    This was an action of debt upon a bond, given by the defendants upon suing a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, upon a judgment rendered against the said Otis in this Court, which had been affirmed.
    The condition of the bond was in the form prescribed in the 22d section of the act of Congress establishing the courts of the United States, — “ that the plaintiff in error should prosecute his writ to effect, and answer all damages and costs, if he failed to make his plea good.”
    The plaintiff having obtained judgment of forfeiture upon demurrer, the defendants prayed for a hearing in equity.
    
      Whitman, for the plaintiff,
    contended that he was entitled to recover, besides the costs allowed in the Court of Error, the amount of all expenses incurred by him in defending against the writ of error, including his travelling expenses to the seat of government, foes to counsel, &c. That this was the intention of the legislature, he argued from the provision of an additional act of Congress, passed December 12, 1794, directing that, where a writ of error shall not. be a supersedeas and stay execution, the se- [ * 410 ] curity to be taken * shall be sufficient only to answer the costs that may be taxed upon an affirmance of the judgment.
   By the Court.

The judicial act of the United States (section 23) authorizes the Supreme Court of the United States, when a judgment is affirmed in that court upon error, to allow to the defendant in error “just damages for his delay, and single or double costs, at their discretion.” It is to be presumed that they have allowed, in this case, what was fit and reasonable ; and the plaintiff is entitled to recover, on the bond sued in this action, the amount for which judgment was given- in the Court of Error, on affirmation of the judgment, and nothing more.

Sproat for the defendants.