New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-04
THE SLAUGHTERHOUsE CASES
Decision of Judge Bradley
He Declines to Increase the Amounts
Cf the BOnds.


Associate Justice of the Supreme Court OF
the United States, yesterday rendered the
following decision:
In these cases, writs of error were allowed,
and bonds to prosecute and to answer all
damages and costs were taken within ten
days from the rendering OF the DEGREES IN
the State court to which the writs were oil.
rected. The bonds were required IN SUCH
amounts respectively as then appeared 10
me sufficient being the same as required
on appeal from the State District TO the
State Supreme Court. Atfidavlts have since
been laid before me, for the purpose OF
showing that the amount of the bonds ls not
sufficient as security for the damages Wnlch
the defendants in error will sustain II the
writs are to be deemed supersedeas OF the
DEGREES and exceptions thereon, and II the
DEGREES should be affirmed.
In the private suits the DEGREES are not
for sums of money, except as to COSTS; Dut
in the suits of defendants in error, they are
for perpetual niunctions against the plain
tiff5 in error, to restrain them from viOlat-
ing the exclusive right granted to the de-
PENDANTS of having cattle landings, live
stock depots and slaughterhouses IN new
Orleans. In the suits OF plaintiffs In error,
the DEGREES are for the dismissal OF the petl'
tions, and dissolution OF the injunction OBJ
tanned by the plaintiffs. Ii these DEGREES
should severally be affirmed, there would
still be no decree against the plaintiffs IN
| error for the payment of any money other
| than the costs; but only for the perpetulty
| of the injunctions of the defendants and
| the dissolution of the iniunctions OF the
plaintiffs.
they will, ia the meantime, sustain damage
| by the suspension Of their lpjunctlons, II
| they are suspended by the writ of error,
and by the continuance of the plslntltfs
injunctions, if they are continued by the
writ of error, and that this damage Will be
| largely in excess of the bonds taken on al
lowing the writs Of error; ! l, 40 not see any
| evidence that this appeal will follow in any
| case but that of the Live Stock Dealers and
Butchers Association against the Crescent
| CITY Live Stock Landing and Slaughter
| house Company. In this case 1t does appear
that the probable emoluments and fees
| which will accumulate and become due from
the plaintiffs to the defendants in error,
during the pending of the appeal, will
largely exceed the amount OF the bond
taken. The bond is in the penalty OF
$4,000, and the fees will probably &C.
| cumulate in one year to the amount OF over
$4,000 But have any right to demand
bond sufficient to guarantee the payment OF
this accumulation Of fees? At first sup
| posed | had such right and l purposed
requiring a bond to be given to the amount
of 100000. But on more careful examl-
nation of the cases, particularly Of the case
of Robarts vs., Cooper, 10 Howard, 1913, l
| am satisfied that it would not be competent
for me to do so. In that case plaintiff in
eiectment recovered the land and nominal
damages. The defendant brought q writ OF
error and gave bond Of only $1,000, being
all that the judge required. An affidavit
being presented to the court, showing that
by being kept out of possession pending the
writ of error, The plaintiff would suffer
S25, 900 damages the court refused to order
all increase of the bond, holding that the
case was not provided for by any legislation
| of Congress.
On further examination l am not entirely
satisfied that | would now order an addi-
tional bond, if one were proper TO be de-
| manded. Toe language OF several OF the
Cases seem to imply that as soon as the writ
of error or appeal is allowed, the Jurisdiction
| OF the Supreme Court attaches to the case,
and supercedes the further action OF the
Judge at chambers. In the Rubber Com
pany VS.. Goodyear & Company, Wall, 156,
the court says: I'm equity cases the appel.
/ late jurisdiction of this court attaches upon
the allowance of the appeal, and again:
"The question of sutliciency (of the bond)
must be determined in the first instance by
the judge who signs the citation, but after
| the allowance of the appeal, this question,
as well as every other in the cause, becomes
| cognizable here. l am referred to one case,
tina. of Black Vs. Zscharie, Sd Howard, 493,
| in wh;ah the Circuit Court tor the District
OF Columbia annulled their order for super
sedeas on account of the insutficlency OF the
bond.
In the cases before me / have made no
order Tor supersedeas, but have left the
case to the legal effect of the several writs
| of error allowed, having simply approved
| the several bonds which were rendered IN
the cases. That approval undoubtedly
imports that the bonds are sufficient for a
| supersedeas of further proceedings under
the DEGREES, so far as writ Of error can
legally operate as such. And to that extent
il was my Intention that they should ope-
rate.
The question as to what is the legal effect
of writs of error on subsequent pr ceedlngs
in these cases, it is not necessary for me to
decide. The suits are really suits in equity,
the relief sought being an injunction, which
is purely equitable relief.
In England. appeals from DEGREES in
equity do not suspend proceedings in the
court below, nor the operation OF the or
ders or DEGREES appealed from, unless. in
special apple alton, An order to that effect
be made, either by the court appealed from
or the court appealed to. But the reason
for this 1ule seems TO be that appeals are al
| lowed there from interlocutory as we'll rs
final orders and DEGREES; and if every APP
peal had the effect of suspeDding further
proceedings no case could ever be termina.
, ted except by consent of parties. (See IL
vesey, 1874; Very, SIC; l6 Vesey, 50, 2O6.(
And it seems to be the settled understand
ing of the courts of the United States, in
which and to which appeals are only al
f lowed from final DEGREES, that an appeal, as
well as writ of error, operates as super
sedeas, if taken within the proper time
and with an offer Of the requisite security
s'The act of 1903" says Mr.. Justice Nc
Lean, in Stafford vs.. the Union Bank OF
, Louisiana, 16 How, 139, places appeals il
chancery on the came footing as wrlts o.
error. And in the case of Catlett VS.. Bro
7 die, 8 Wheat, $685. this court held that Sc
r curity must be given on writ OF error tt
operate as a supersedeas for the amount o
the judgment. And, again, there is nc
discretion to be exercised by the Judge
taking the bond when the appeal or writ OF
error is to operate as a supersedeas. Thl
i rule was established in 1917, and it has beef
adhered to ever SINCE" Do. p. 40. In the
Rubber Company VS.. Goodyear, 6 Wallace
1856 the court says: "What is necessary il
i that it (the security be sufficient and wher
- it is desired to make the appeal a superseded
= that it be given within ten days of rem
derlng the decree
But suppose it be granted that an appea
properly allowed is q suspension in equl'.
q cases as well as in cases OF law, of what is /
a supersedeas Does it supersede the de-
cree, or only execution upon the decree
Will defendant, after appealing from a de
Y cree for specific performance requiring hin
to execute deed, be amenable to an attach
ment if he neglect to execute such deed?
i 1t would seem to be the logical conse
q ouence that the whole effect OF the deere,
q is suspended, and that without some specia
, , order to the contrary (Which it seems Cal
II | only he made nv the aDpellate cOurt) thing