Oneale v. Long
Annotate this Case
8 U.S. 60 (1807)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Oneale v. Long, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 60 60 (1807)
Oneale v. Long
8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 60
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
If a bond be executed by 0. as a surety for S. to obtain an appeal from the judgment of a justice of peace in Maryland, and the bond is rejected by the justice, and afterwards, without the knowledge of O., the name of W. be interlined as an obligor who executes the bond, and the justice then accepts it, it is void as to O.
An action of debt upon four joint and several bonds, signed and sealed by Mary Sweeny as principal, and William Oneale, I. T. Frost and Lund Washington as sureties, conditioned that she should prosecute her appeal upon four several judgments rendered against her by a justice of peace in Maryland. William Oneale, the defendant below, pleaded non est factum, and upon the trial of that issue took a bill of exceptions, because the court below (two judges only being present, and divided in opinion) did not, at his request, instruct the jury
"That if they should be satisfied by the evidence that the bonds were signed, sealed, and delivered by Mary Sweeny as principal and I. T. Frost and the defendant as her sureties, and were afterwards presented to C.C. (the justice who had rendered the judgments) for his approbation and acceptance of the securities, and were by him refused and rejected, and after such rejection were interlined without the license, privity, and knowledge of the defendant by inserting the name of Lund Washington as a co-obligor, who on the succeeding day, without the privity, knowledge, and consent of the defendant, signed, sealed, and delivered the bonds, which were afterwards approved of by the justice, that then such interlineation and execution of said bonds by Lund Washington rendered them void as to the defendant, and the plaintiff cannot recover in this suit."
By the Act of Maryland, 1791, c. 68. § 5, no execution upon a judgment of a justice of peace shall be stayed by an appeal unless the person appealing or some other in his behalf
"shall immediately upon making such appeal enter into bond, with sufficient sureties, such as the justice by whom judgment shall be given shall approve of, in double the sum recovered, with condition"
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court that there was error in this that the court below did not instruct the jury as prayed by the defendant.
He observed that the judges did not all agree upon the same grounds, some being of opinion that the bonds were void by reason of the interlineation and others that they were vacated by the rejection of them by the magistrate, and could not be set up again without a new delivery.
Judgment reversed, with costs.