V CA S E S
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
m mm V
• _ • • • •
duxtznt etutm Gimmt mul gmtxxzt (llmtz.
Fmzouson and others v. Dam and others.
(Ourcuil Court, W D. Tennessee. September 30, 1886.)
1. Rnonrvmz-EoorA1i,r—A1=ris:AL -— Surmnsnnnas Bonn -— Cusronr or Rncnrvnn
Pmmme run run.
The omission from an appeal-bond of the statutory stipulation as to dam-
_ ages required to eilect a supersedeas does not necessarily entitle the party to
whom the property is adjudged to a discharge of the receiver, and possession
“ of the roperty, pending the appeal. The subsequent custody is a matter
which the court will regulate, upon the equitable circumstances of each case,
independently of the fact whether there has been a statutory supersedeas of
the tinal decree or not.
2. S.um·-Mrsrxxn-Connnorrou or Dnruorrvn Bonn.
Whether the circuit court has authority, after appeal, to allow an amend-
ment to asupersedeas bond, quwre. But, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to
determine whether it will grant an application to execute the decree because
of a defective bond which cannot operate as a supersedeas, it may withhold
execution until the supreme court can act in the matter; and should do so, if
there be equitable considerations of mistake which wouldinducc a court of eq-
uity to reform the bond on a bill for that purpose. On such an application the
court is not compelled to act solely upon the one fact of a defective bond. It
will inquire at large, and exercise its equitable powers of relief, as in other
cases, upon all the facts} ‘
8. SdME·—DISCI-IARGE or Rmomrvmn.
The court will not sanction the dispossession of its receiver by awrit issued
by the clerk upon the d1scovery of a defect in the supersededé bond, although
the iinal decree, if not superseded, milght authorize it. The proper practice is
to apply to the court to execute the ecree.
(Syllabus by the Court.) V
In Equity. Application to discharge receiver. _
The opinion of the court, and the decree entered upon this appli-
cation, which is appended as useful to show what was actually done
in pursuance of the opinion, suiliciently state the facts. At the last
V term of the supreme court the plaintiffs applied for a ma.-ndamus to i
compel the circuit court to vacate the order recalling the writ issued
by the clerk, or to otherwise execute the decree by discharging the re-
1See note at end of case. ,
v.29F.no.1——1 —