Case ID: f2d_360/html/0210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America v. PEERLESS CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant.
    No. 15725.
    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
    Argued May 16, 1966.
    Decided May 24, 1966.
    Ralph G. Mesce, Newark, N. J. (William Abruzzese, Newark, N. J., Murray Brensilber, New York City, of counsel, on the brief) for appellant.
    David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J. (Martin Turnan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appel-lee.
    Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and MeLAUGHLIN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced by the United States to recover for the breach of an appearance bond executed by the Peerless Casualty Company. After Peerless had conceded that the bond had been breached, the district court concluded that the provision in the bond for the payment of five thousand dollars in the event of breach “was, in [its] opinion, a reasonable forecast of just compensation * * * ” and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.

Though Peerless raises several issues before us, the essential question is whether the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the provision was not penal, and therefore, enforcible. We think that the district court committed no error in holding that five thousand dollars properly constituted liquidated damages. See 5 Corbin, Contracts § 1062 at 355-356; 3 Williston, Contracts §§ 775 et seq.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.