CITY OF CLARKSDALE v. WILLIAMSON et al.

CITY OF CLARKSDALE v. WILLIAMSON et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. March 5, 1912.) No. 2,243. Appeal ahd Error (§ 1236) — Affirmance—Judgment'on Supersedeas Bond —When Entered. Judgment on a supersedeas bond, given under rule 13 of the Circuit Court of Appeals (150 Fed. xxviii, 79 C. C. A. xxviii), and Rev. St. § 1000 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 712), on suing out a writ of error to review a judgment for money not otherwise secured, will not, on affirmance, be entered in the appellate court; the proper practice being to enter such judgment on motion in the trial court after remand. [Ed. Note.' — For other cases, see Appeal.and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4778-4784; Dec. Dig. § 1236.) In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the "Northern District of Mississippi. Action at law by S. M. Williamson and others against the City of Clarksdale. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. John W. Cutrer, for plaintiff in error. Julian C. Wilson, for defendants in error. Before McCORMICK and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge. For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The right of trial by jury was waived by stipulation in writing, and the court, on the facts, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs (defendants in error here). The facts disclosed by the record fully sustain the judgment. None of the assignments of error are well taken, and the judgment must be affirmed. The judgment was for money not otherwise secured, and, on suing out the writ, a supersedeas bond was given under rule 13 of this court (150 Fed. xxviii, 79 C. C. A. xxviii). R. S. U. S. § 1000 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 712). The defendants in error in the brief request the court to enter judgment here on the supersedeas bond. The practice heretofore prevailing has been to enter such judgment on the bond on motion in the trial court, after the mandate goes down from this court. Gordon v. Third National Bank, 56 Fed. 790, 6 C. C. A. 125. We see no reason in this case for departing from the usual course. Affirmed.