Mexican Construction Co. v. Reusens
Supreme Court of the United States
ORIGINAL MOTION IN A SUIT PENDING IN ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. This was a motion by defendant in error-to compel plaintiff in error to furnish additional security. The motion was founded upon the following affidavit, entitled in the cause:. “ Michael II.
Read the full summary
ORIGINAL MOTION IN A SUIT PENDING IN ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. This was a motion by defendant in error-to compel plaintiff in error to furnish additional security. The motion was founded upon the following affidavit, entitled in the cause:. “ Michael II. Cardozo, being duly sworn, doth depose and say: I am one of the attorneys and of counsel for the defendant in error, and have had continuous charge of this action for him as such attorney and counsel from its commencement. “ On or about the 6th day of February, 1884, Guillaume…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
This motion is denied on the authority of Jerome v. M ’Carter, 21 Wall. 17. Neither the circumstances of the case, nor of the parties, nor of the sureties on the bond have changed since the security was taken. All these things are now as they were then.
We do not understand the case of Nichols v. MacLean, 98 N. Y. 458, to decide that the guarantee by the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, of the undertaking of the Mexican National Construction Company for a discharge of the attachment, is void because signed by one surety and not by two; but only that it need not have been accepted by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jerome v. McCarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Nichols v. . MacLeanNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by3 opinions
- Russia Cement Co. v. Le Page Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Farmers State Bank v. HaunWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- United States v. Bobbie Gene LigginsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1971