Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/127

 UNITED STATES V. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW OELBANS. lU �Bupremp court seems to be the only rule attempting to guide the court in fixing the amouiit of ilie bond- This rule provides for the following conditions : �(1) Where the judgmeiit or decree is for the recovery of money not other- wisesecured; (2) where the property in controversy necessarily foilows the event of the suit; (3) where the property is in the custody of the marsh;il under process; (4) where the proceeds, or a bond for the, yalue thereof, is in the control or custody of the court, �The "cases under consideration come under none of these con- ditions. The judgments sought to be stayed are not for money or property, but to direct the performance of a ministerial act, to-Wit : the levy of taxation, looking to the payment of a specifie sum of money. The defendants in the judgments are municipal offieers, having little or no pecuniary interest in the matter. They. have a right to their writ of error, and for a supersedeas to require of them a bond for the whole amount of the original judgment, including "first damages for delay," and costs and interest on the appeal, would be a great hardship, which this court will not exact unless the law and duty clearly require it. The object of the bond is to secure the defendant in error against damages from delay, and costs in prosecuting the writ. So, under rule 29, when the property is supposed to be secure, as where it necessarily foilows the event of the suit, or is in the custody of the court, a bond is only to be required in an amount suf- ficient to secure the sum recovered for the use and detention of the property, and the costs of the suit and just damages for delay, and costs and interest on the appeal. From the terms of the judgments sought to be stayed it would seem that the amount of the judgments, costs acerued, and interest to accrue, are secured by all the taxable property in the city of New Orleans, and would need no further security. �This view, in a similar case, appears to have been taken by Mr. Justice Miller and Judge Treat, in the eighth circuit, eastern district, of Missoari. See case of Fourth Nat. Bank v. Franklin County, 10 Cent. Law J. 193. �If this be the case, only the costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ, and just damages for delay, need to be secured by the super- sedeas bond. Indeed, so far as costs are concerned, the plaintifi in error will have to pay for bis record, and give other stipulation for costs in the supreme court. See General Eules, No. 10. The gen- erai damages for the delay in the payment of money is the interest allowed by law, and this seems to be provided for and secured with v.8,no.3--8 ��� �