Martin v. Hazard Powder Company

Martin v. Hazard Powder Company. The doctrine announced in Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17, affirmed, and applied to this case. On motion for a rule upon the plaintiff in error to file a new supersedeas bond. Mr. 8. F. Phillips for the defendant in error, — in support of the motion. Mr. H. O. Alternan for the plaintiff in error, in opposition. [MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice] Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. We held in Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17, after much consideration, that if, “after the security has been accepted, the circumstances of the case, or of the parties, or of the sureties upon the bond, have changed, so that security which, at the time it was taken, was good and sufficient, does not continue to be so, we might, upon a proper application, so adjudge and order as justice might require. But upon facts existing at the time the security was accepted, the action of the justice, within the statute and the rules of practice adopted for his guidance, is final.” The showing made in this case does not satisfy us that the alleged insufficiency of the security taken when the writ of error was sued out, arises from any change in the circumstances of the sureties since the acceptance and approval of the bond. Motion denied.