CRANE v. BUCKLEY et al.

CRANE v. BUCKLEY et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 8, 1905.) Appeal — Liability on Supersedeas Bond — Prosecuting Appeal to Effect. Where the defendant in a suit to foreclose a contract for the purchase of real estate by an appeal secured a modification of the decree below, allowing him a substantial extension of time within which to make the deferred payments and protect his rights under the contract, his appeal was “prosecuted to effect,” within the meaning of the condition of his supersedeas bond. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Cushing, Grant & Cushing, for plaintiff in error. Theodore J. Roche, Matthew I. Sullivan, and J. F. Sullivan, for defendants in error. Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge. [MAJORITY — HAWLEY, District Judge.] HAWLEY, District Judge. The only point involved in this writ of error is, “Did the defendant Buckley prosecute his appeal to effect?” This question was answered in the affirmative by this court in Buckley v. Crane, 123 Fed. 29, 33, 59 C. C. A. 109, The rulings of the court below in the trial of the present case were in accord with the views heretofore expressed by this court. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.