Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/243/273.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:10:26+00:00

Document:
[243 U.S. 273, 274] Messrs. Perry J. Lewis and Frank H. Booth for petitioners.
Mr. Carlos Bee for respondent.
The sale was had. Pease, being the highest bidder, purchased all the property for a sum which, when applied upon the judgment, left a large deficiency. Immediately after the sale, and before execution issued, Pease and Heye's administratrix (he having died pending the appeal) filed, in the district court, a motion that execution be stayed and that so much of the 'decree on mandate' as directed its issue be set aside. On the same day a similar motion was filed by the trustee in liquidation of the People's Light Company (it having been dissolved pending the appeal). Both motions were presented by the counsel who had theretofore acted for the defendant. The authority of the court to issue the execution was attacked on several grounds. Both motions alleged that the original decree contained no provision for such execution, and that it could not be enlarged on return of the mandate, because the term had expired at which it was entered. They alleged that the order for execution was illegal because the People's Light Company had been dissolved and Heye had died, pending the appeal. They asserted that the 'decree on mandate,' so far as it directed the issuance of the execution, was 'wrongful and illegal,' because 'it was entered by the court without pleading, without notice, and without hearing, against, to, or of these petitioners,' and 'deprived them of their property without due process of law.' The motion on behalf of the sureties alleged also that they had been deprived of their constitutional right to 'trial by jury in actions at common [243 U.S. 273, 276] law.' The prayers for relief were rested, also, on still broader grounds, which involved directly the whole merits of the controversy. It was alleged that the 'bond did not secure, . . . the payment of the amount of said judgment or any deficiency that might remain after the application of the proceeds of the sale of said property, but operated only as indemnity against damages and costs by reason of said appeal,'-and that the costs on said appeal had been paid. The motions, which were fully heard upon evidence introduced by the petitioners, were denied. An appeal was taken by all the petitioners from this denial; and by Pease alone from the 'decree on mandate.' Both the decrees were affirmed on appeal; and a rehearing was refused. 142 C. C. A. 565, 228 Fed. 273. Thereupon petitions to this court for certiorari to the circuit court of appeals were filed and granted.
After issue of the execution, Pease instituted still another proceeding,-a suit to restrain its enforcement. But when the injunction was denied by the district court, the marshal made levy, and Pease, 'as trustee for himself and the other stockholders of the People's Light Company,' paid to the clerk of court the balance due on the judgment. An appeal from the denial of the injunction was dismissed by the circuit court of appeals; but review of that decree is not sought here.
First. It is contended that the 'decree on mandate' was void so far as it ordered execution to issue for any deficiency; because that direction was not contained in the original decree or in the mandate of the circuit court of appeals. We are referred to cases holding that the lower court must enforce the decree as affirmed without substantial enlargement or alteration. But the original decree ordered that the plaintiff 'do have and recover' $6,804.90. [243 U.S. 273, 277] This is the customary language used in personal judgments which are, without further direction, enforceable by general execution. If the defendant desired to insist that, because the suit was a foreclosure proceeding, the decree in this form was not proper, the objection should have been taken on the first appeal; and, not having been so taken, must be considered as waived. The 'decree on mandate' obeyed the command of the mandate 'that such execution and further proceedings be had in said cause as, according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had.' The amount of the deficiency was fixed by the sale; the insertion of the amount in the execution was but a clerical act.
Fourth. It is contended that notice was not given to the surety of the motion for summary judgment. It is a proper and usual practice to give such notice; but it may be questioned whether notice is always essential. See Union Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co. 238 U.S. 140 , 59 L. ed. 1238, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 828; Johnson v. Chicago & P. Elevator Co. 119 U.S. 388 , 30 L. ed. 447, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 254, and cases in the mangin. 4 [243 U.S. 273, 280] Furthermore, the last two objections, if originally well taken, were waived or cured by the subsequent proceedings. For the motions filed later invoked a decision by the court upon the question of the sureties' liability on the evidence presented by them; and no relevant fact was in dispute. There was no issue to submit to a jury, even if the sureties had been otherwise entitled thereto. After thus voluntarily submitting their cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. McBride, 141 U.S. 127 , 35 L. ed. 659, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 982; Western Life Indemnity Co. v. Rupp, 235 U.S. 261, 273 , 59 S. L. ed. 220, 224, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 37.
Fifth. It is further contended that the district court erred in entering judgment against the surety for the deficiency, instead of merely for the costs and any damages to the plaintiff resulting from the delay incident to the unsuccessful appeal. This objection raises a more serious question. The supersedeas bond was in the common form, conditioned that the appellant shall 'prosecute its appeal to effect and answer all damages and costs, if it fails to make its plea good.' It has long been settled that a bond in that form binds the surety, upon affirmance of a judgment or decree for the mere payment of money, to pay the amount of the judgment or decree. Catlett v. Brodie, 9 Wheat. 553, 6 L. ed. 158. Rule 29 of this court-rule 13, 5th C. C. A.-makes provision for a difference with respect to the bond, between a judgment or decree for money not otherwise secured, and cases 'where the property in controversy necessarily follows the event of the suit, as in real actions, replevin, and in suits on mortgages.' It is not [243 U.S. 273, 281] clear whether the purpose of the rule, in case of secured judgments or decrees, was merely to limit the amount of the penalty, or was also to affect the nature of the liabilities, so that the sureties would be liable to answer only for the costs, and damages actually resulting from the delay.
We are, however, relieved from deciding this question; because the record discloses that after the issue of the execution complained of, Pease paid the amount due 'as trustee for himself and the other stockholders of the People's Light Company.' In other words, the record does not show that Pease paid the amount as surety in satisfaction of the deficiency of judgment against himself. The payment by him may have been made 'as trustee,' because before that time the corporation had been dissolved. If this payment was made on behalf of the corporation, obviously Pease could get no benefit from a reversal of the decree; and as the decree has been satisfied by the principal obligor, the sureties are in no danger of further proceeding against themselves. On the facts appearing of record the decree is therefore affirmed.
[ Footnote 1 ] Summary judgment was entered on appeal bonds in the following cases: White v. Prigmore, 29 Ark. 208; Meredith v. Santa Clara Min. Asso. 60 Cal. 617; Johnson v. Chicago & P. Elevator Co. 119 U.S. 388 , 30 L. ed. 447, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 254 (Ill.); Jewett v. Shoemaker, 124 Iowa, 561, 100 N. W. 531; Greer v. McCarter, 5 Kan. 17; Holmes v. The Bell Air, 5 La. Ann. 523; Chappee v. Thomas, 5 Mich. 53; Davidson v. Farrell, 8 Minn. 258, Gil. 225; Beall v. New Mexico, 16 Wall. 535, 21 L. ed. 292 (N. M.); Clerk's Office v. Huffsteller, 67 N. C. 449; Charman v. McLane, 1 Or. 339; Whiteside v. Hickman, 2 Yerg. 358; Allen v. Catlin, 9 Wash. 603, 38 Pac. 79.
[ Footnote 2 ] Cases where equity courts gave summary judgment against the securities on appeal bonds: Woodworth v. North Western Mut. L. Ins. Co. 185 U.S. 354 , 46 L. ed. 945, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676; Smith v. Gaines, 93 U.S. 341 , 23 L. ed. 901; Richards v. Harrison, 218 Fed. 134 (D. C. S. D. Iowa); Fidelity & D. Co. v. Expanded Metal Co. 106 C. C. A. 114, 183 Fed. 568 (3d C. C. A.), affirming 177 Fed. 604; Perry v. Tacoma Mill Co. 81 C. C. A. 333, 152 Fed. 115 (9th C. C. A.); Empire State-Idaho Min. & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 69 C. C. A. 87, 136 Fed. 99 (9th C. C. A.); Brown v. North Western Mut. L. Ins. Co. 55 C. C. A. 654, 119 Fed. 148 (8th C. C. A.).
[ Footnote 3 ] Cases where it was held that courts of equity might render summary judgment on injunction bonds: Russell v. Farley, 105 U.S. 433, 445 , 26 S. L. ed. 1060, 1064; Lea v. Deakin, 11 Biss. 40, 13 Fed. 514 (C. c. N. D. Ill.); Lehman v. McQuown, 31 Fed. 138 (C. C. Colo.); Coosaw Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min. Co. 51 Fed. 107 (C. C. S. C.); Tyler Min. Co. v. Last Chance Min. Co. 32 C. C. A. 498, 61 U. S. App. 193, 90 Fed. 15, 19 Mor. Min. Rep. 525 (9th C. C. A.); Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co. 158 Fed. 171 (C. C. N. J.). A few of the districts have a rule of court providing that damages upon dissolution of an injunction 'may be assessed in the same proceeding, either by the court or by reference to a master and judgment entered in the same action against the sureties on the bond.' See Ark. West. D. Rule 16, as amended to Feb. 27, 1908; Ark. East. D. Rule 14, as amended to Oct. 1, 1915.
[ Footnote 4 ] Cases showing the usual practice of giving to the sureties notice of the motion: Empire State-Idaho Min. & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 69 C. C. A. 87, 136 Fed. 99; Gordon v. Third Nat. Bank, 6 C. C. A. 125, 13 U. S. App. 554, 56 Fed. 790. Cf. Leslie v. Brown, 32 C. C. A. 556, 61 U. S. App. 727, 90 Fed. 171. Cases in state courts holding that notice to the surety is not requisite: Rogers v. Brooks, 31 Ark. 194; Meredith v. Santa Clara Min. Asso. 60 Cal. 617; Jewett v. Shoemaker, 124 Iowa, 561, 100 N. W. 531; Portland Trust Co. v. Havely, 36 Or. 234, 245, 59 Pac. 466, 61 Pac. 346.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.