Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1915-05-08
IMPORTANT DECISION
United States Circuit Court of APP
peals Gives Opinion in FAR
Reaching Case.

Richmond, May S-Judge Knapp
in voicing Thursday the opinion ol
the United States Circuit Court OF
Appeals in the case of John T. Jone;
against the American Surety Com
pany, of New York, reversed the de
cision of the District Court at Rich
mond and held that the surety com.
pany is not liable for the $4,000 in
junction bond in question.
The case grew out of two actions
at law brought by Jones against
Joseph W. Voolfolk, one FOR $4,000
and the other for $4,000. both based
upon alleged violations OF certain
contracts entered into between these
two parties. First entered upon the
docket of a State court, the cases
were finally removed to the United
States District Court, where Wool
folk filed petition in equity, alleg-
ing defenses that could not be prop
erly presented in court suit at law
and asking that prosecutions OF the
action be enjoined and the entire con-
troversy be adiudicated in court OF
equity. The injunctions were granted
on condition that Voolfolk give bond
in the sum of $4,000 as surety that
he would abide by the damages and
costs that might acquire to the plain
tiff in case the injunction was dis
solved. The American Surety Com
pany was Woolfolk's surety on this
bond
All the issues involved were adju-
dicated in this equity suit with the
result that the $4,000 suit was per-
petually enjoined and the injunction
against the $4,000 suit dissolved
The court upon dissolving the in
junction, awarded Jones $1,000 dam
ages, from which decision both Jones
and the surety company appealed. the
one claiming the whole appealed, the
amount named in the bond, the other
claiming nonliability to any extent.
In rendering The courts opinion as
to the legal status of the bond, Judge
Knapp said: The bond in question
is not an appeal bond or a superSe
deas Dond--its is distinctly AZ iniunc:
tion bond which was designed to ac-
complish the ordinary purpose for
which security is required when "a
preliminary injunction is granted,
namely to protect the part enloined
from any loss occasioned by award
ing the Injunction. 1t was not intend
ed to secure payment of the sum
which might be adjudged due from
Voolfolk to Jones, but merely to m
demnify the latter against any DAM
age he might sustain if 1t should
turn out that his action It law ought
not to have been stayed.
The opinion handed down Thurs
day by the United States Circuit
of Appeals, in session here rellev-
ing the Hartford Fire Insurance
Company of liability for $4,000
policy issued to the Stewart Vehicle
Company, of Martinsburg, w, Va
which was burned in September,
1912. is of interest to fire insurance
agents throughout the country.
The company disputed its liability
to payment of the policy on inc
ground that the plant was cucumber
ed by a chattel mortgage, a case
which is expressly forbidden by a
clause in the policy.
The opinion of the Appellate Court
raverses District Judge Dayton, who
nermited the cas-" to go to jury
with the result that 4 verdict Tor
the full amount of the policy was re-
turned in favor of the vehicle con-
corr According to the opinion handed
do,,, Yesterday. a verdict should have
been directed for the insurance com
pany.
Z