HARWOOD & Another v. DIECKERHOFF & Another

HARWOOD & Another v. DIECKERHOFF & Another. ORIGINAL MOTION IN A CAUSE PENDING IN THIS COURT. ■ Argued March 2, 1886. Decided March 8, 1886. Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17, affirmed and applied to this case. On the authority of that ease the court declines to increase the amount of the bond given on appeal in this case, or to require additional securities. This was a motion, founded upon accompanying affidavits, “ to increase the amount of the bond to be given on appeal, and to require additional securities, or in default thereof, that the appeal taken by the above-named appellants to review the decree of the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit and Northern District of Florida, rendered at the December Term, 1884, that is to say, the 9th day of May, 1885, be dismissed, upon the ground that by reason of the death of 'N. B. Harwood, one of the appellants,' since the date of said decree, the property therein decreed to be sold for the satisfaction of the sums found due to the complainants, has greatly depreciated and is constantly depreciating, and for the want of the care and attention which it had in the lifetime of the said N. B. Harwood, and would now have, but for his death, the security is altogether inadequate; and for such further or other relief or order as may be proper in the premises.” Mr. C. J. Babbitt and Mr. W. E. Earle for the motion. Mr. John J. Walker was with them on the brief. Mr. Henry Jaekson opposing. Mr. L. I Fleming was with him on the brief. [MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite] Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. This motion is denied on the authority of Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17. “ The circumstances of the case, or of the parties,” ‘have not been so changed by the death of N. B. Har-wood, one of' the appellants, as to make “ the security, which; at the time it was taken, was c good and sufficient,’ ” now insufficient. No personal decree is asked. The sole purpose of ■the suit is to subject the lands in question to the payment of debts of Harwood, the deceased appellant. The affidavits do not satisfy us that the property is depreciating in value by reason of any neglect of the surviving appellants in its care or management. Motion denied.