Case: Edward Kilbourne and others v. the State Savings Institution of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri
Abbreviation: Kilbourne v. State Savings Institution
Decision Date: 1859-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 22 How. 503
Volume: 63
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Edward Kilbourne and others v. the State Savings Institution of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri.
Judges: 
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
Edward Kilbourne and others v. the State Savings Institution of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri.
Where no question was raised upon the trial of the case in the court below for-the consideration- of this court, nor did the plaintiff in error, by counsel oi otherwise, make one here, the judgment will be affirmed with costs and interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum.
This case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the district of Iowa.
It was an actioij, brought by way of petition by the State Savings Institution in Missouri, against Edward Kilbourne, R. B. Foote, Coleman & Foote, Anson L. Deming, and Henry K. Love, citizens of the State of Iowa, upon a bill of exchange for $1,410.37, drawn by Coleman & Foote upon Edward Kilbourne, payable to the order of R. B. Foote, one hundred and twenty days after date, and which passed, by endorsement, to the State Savings Institution of St. Louis; afterwards, there were consolidated with this suit two others, one, upon a bill for $1,526.23, and.a third upon a bill for $3,000. The judgment of the court was as follows:
It is therefore considered by the court that plaintiffs recover of,said Coleman & Foote and Edward Kilbourne, as principals, and R. B. Foote, A. L. Deming, and H. K. Love, sureties, the sum of $6,440 aforesaid, with their costs in this behalf expended, to be taxed by the clerk.
The defendants sued out a writ of error, and brought the case up to this court.
Mr. Blair ,and Mr. Polk, for the defendants in error, moved to dismiss the writ, upon the ground that it was merely sued out for delay.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice WAYNE
delivered the opinion of the court.
No question was raised upon the trial of this case in the court below, for the consideration of this court, nor have the plaintiffs in error, by counsel or otherwise, made one here. The writ of error was obviously sued out for delay. We direct the affirmance of the judgment and ten per cent, damages
ORDER.
It is now -here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause he and the same is hereby affirmed with costs and interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum.