Case Name: OEHRING et al. v. FOX TYPEWRITER CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1920-05-12
Citations: 266 F. 682
Docket Number: No. 234
Parties: OEHRING et al. v. FOX TYPEWRITER CO. et al.
Judges: Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 266
Pages: 682–685

Head Matter:
OEHRING et al. v. FOX TYPEWRITER CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 12, 1920.)
No. 234.
Appeal and error <&wkey;1234(5) — Cost bond on appeal covers costs of trial court.
A bond given on appeal, winch is not a supersedeas, but what is commonly called a cost bond, but conditioned that appellant “shall prosecute its appeal to effect and answer all damages and costs if it fails to make its plea good,” held to cover costs of the trial court as well as oí the appellate court.
Ward, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Suit in equity by August J. Oehring and another against the Fox Typewriter Company and the 2Etna Casualty & Surety Company. From an order of the District Court, complainants appeal.
Reversed.
See, also, 163 C. C. A. 578, 251 Fed. 584; 166 C. C. A. 220, 254 Fed. 774.
Prior to May 26, 1917, the District Court entered a decree in this cause, adjudging the recovery of certain moneys from defendant by plaintiff; the action being the ordinary suit against an infringer of a patent. Jfrom this decree defendant appealed to this court, and on such appeal gave a bond in the sum of íjiñOO, with the ¿Etna Company as surety, of which the condition was as follows: “If the said Pox Typewriter Company shall prosecute its appeal to effect, and answer all damages and costs if it fails to make its plea good, tlion the above obligation to be void; else to remain in full force and virtue.”
l:pon the appeal this court modified plaintiff’s recovery of upwards of SI f,000 in some respects, and, as so modified, affirmed the decree, without in any way disturbing the award of District Court costs contained in the decree appealed from. Upon the filing of the mandate in the District Court, plaintiffs made application for the issuance of execution against the surety to recover said District Court costs. Execution against the Eox Typewriter Company, both for the money decree and the costs, had been returned unsatisfied. Upon this application the 2Etna Company appeared and urged that the bond in question, not being a supersedeas bond, secured nothing but the costs of the appellate court. The District Court so held, and entered an order to that effect. This appeal followed.
Plans v. Briesen, of New York City, for appellants.
Fred D. Chappell and Chappell & Farl, all of Kalamazoo, Mich., and Philipp, Sawyer, Rice & Kennedy, oí New York City, for appellee Fox Typewiiter Co.
James B. Henney, of New York City, for appellee TEtna Casualty & Surety Co.
Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
HOUGH, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Undoubtedly the bond given was not a supersedeas bond. The discrepancy between the recovery and the security negatived any such inference. Lee v. Jackson, etc., Co. (C. C. A.) 261 Fed. 721. The question submitted, therefore, is whether, when what in this circuit is commonly called a bond for costs on appeal is given, such bond, when in the language of this instrument, affords security for the costs of the trial court, as well as for those of the appellafe tribunal. It is well to remember that all costs, trial as well as appellate, are creatures of statute, old as the original statutes may be. This subject is historically treated, amply and interestingly, in Re Rule No. 37, 5 Pet. 724, 8 L. Ed. 288; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. at page 371, 14 L. Ed. 181; Cameron v. Paul, 11 Pa. 277; Lehigh Valley, etc., Co. v. McFarland, 44 N. J. Law, 674
The nature and history of what are commonly called "supersedeas bonds" in the practice of the United States courts has been set forth in Rederiaktiebolaget Amie v. Universal, etc., Co., 245 Fed. 282, 157 C. C. A. 474. The bond which is the subject of this appeal was given pursuant to what was at its date rule 13 of this court (235 Fed. vi, 148 C. C. A. vi), since October 16, 1918, rule No. 12. This regulation follows in its language rule 29 of the Supreme Court (32 Sup. Ct. xii) and the obligation of the bond literally follows the language of the .rule.
The question whether a bond thus worded, commonly called a cost bond, and never thought to - work a supersedeas, covers trial costs, is so far as we know, new in this circuit. It is probable that the practical usage of the bar has been in accord with the ruling below. The exact point here argued, however, was presented to the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit in Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Expanded Metal Co., 183 Fed. S68, 106 C. C. A. 114, and it was there held that a bond, which, not being a supersedeas, left the parties successful wholly at liberty to issue execution, notwithstanding an appeal, did furnish security for costs accrued before it was given; i. e., trial costs. The Fifth Circuit has followed this ruling in a criminal cause (American Surety Co. v. United States, 239 Fed. 680, 152 C. C. A. 514), and the Ninth Circuit has approved it in Pacific, etc., Co. v. Harvey, 250 Fed. 952, 163 C. C. A. 202; and again in Johnson v. United States (C. C. A.) 260 Fed. 783.
A majority of this court incline to approve the reasoning and conclusion of Cross, J., in the Expanded Metal Case, but are strongh of the opinion that, the"matter being; one of practical construction, as to which uniformity between the several circuits is highly desirable, we should adhere to the ruling now so widely accepted.
It is accordingly directed that the order appealed from be reversed, with costs, and .the matter remanded, with directions to grant plaintiff's application.