Bein v. Heath , 13 L. Ed. 939 ( 1852 )

53 U.S. 168 (1851) 12 How. 168

MARY BEIN, AND RICHARD BEIN, HER HUSBAND, G.S. HAWKINS, AND JAMES M'MASTERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
MARY HEATH.

Supreme Court of United States.

It was argued by Mr. Coxe, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Bradley, for the defendant.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action on an injunction-bond given by Mary Bein, one of the plaintiffs in error in a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in which Bein and wife were complainants, and Mary Heath the present defendant in error, the respondent.

It appears that Mary Bein executed certain promissory notes for the payment of a large sum of money, and mortgaged her separate and individual property to secure the debt. These notes and the mortgage became the property of Mary Heath, as the legal representative of Sherman Heath, who loaned the money for which they were given, and who died before any proceedings were instituted to recover it.

The notes not being paid, Mary Heath obtained a writ for the seizure and sale of the mortgaged premises, according to the laws of Louisiana. And Bein and wife thereupon filed their bill in the Circuit Court of the United States, setting forth that the separate property of Mary Bein, which had been seized, was not legally or equitably chargeable with the payment of this debt, and praying an injunction to stay the sale. It is unnecessary to state the grounds on which the complainants asked relief, as the merits of that controversy are not involved in the present suit. The court passed the order directing the injunction to issue, as prayed, upon the complainants giving a bond with certain sureties named in the order, to answer all damages which the defendant in that suit might sustain in consequence of said injunction being granted, should the same be thereafter dissolved.

The bond was given in the penalty, and with the sureties, mentioned in the order. But, instead of making the condition such as the court had directed, which was the proper one, according to established chancery practice, the complainants adopted, we presume, the form used in the State courts of Louisiana, in cases where the law requires an injunction-bond to stay execution on a judgment or order of seizure and sale. The condition is as follows:

"Now, the condition of the above obligation is, that we, the above bounden Mary Bein, and Gilbert S. Hawkins, (and) James McMasters, sureties, will well and truly pay, to the said Mary Heath, the defendant in said injunction, and plaintiff in said case of seizure and sale, all such damages as she may recover against us, in case it should be decided that the said injunction was wrongfully obtained."

The injunction, however, was issued by the clerk upon the filing of this bond. And the suit proceeded to final hearing, when the court passed the following decree:

"This cause came on for trial on the 29th day of May, 1844, and was argued by counsel; wherefore, in consideration of the law and the evidence, and the rules and principles of equity being in favor of the respondent, Mary Heath, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the complainant be dismissed with costs. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the injunction granted in this case be dissolved, and the respondent be allowed to proceed with the writ of seizure and sale granted, in accordance with the prayer of her original petition."

The complainants appealed to this court, and, after argument by counsel, the decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed, with costs. And, thereupon, the present defendant in error brought the suit which is now before us, upon the injunction-bond hereinbefore stated, to recover certain damages stated in her petition, for which she alleges the obligors in that bond are liable. The suit is by petition, in the usual form of Louisiana practice, and the judgment of the Circuit Court being in favor of the plaintiff in that suit, the plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the court below, have brought the case before this court.

It appears, from the exceptions, and the judgment in the case, that the Circuit Court regarded this bond as the same in principle with the bond required by the laws of Louisiana, where an injunction is obtained to stay execution upon an order for the seizure and sale of mortgaged property; and therefore considered this bond as creating the same obligations and giving the same rights to parties as if it had been given under the laws of the State. And by these laws, when the party obtains an injunction, and fails to support it at the trial, judgment is given against him and his sureties for the debt, interest, and damages, at the time the injunction is dissolved, and it forms part of the same judgment. 8 Rob. 20. The sureties in the bond are treated as parties to the suit; and the amount of interest and damages which the court may award by their judgment is regulated by the laws of the State. It is with reference to this mode of proceeding that the injunction-bond in question appears to have been framed; and it is to this judgment, as prescribed by the laws of the State, that the condition must refer, when it binds the obligors to pay all such damages the obligee might recover against them, in case it should be decided that the injunction was wrongfully obtained. There must be a recovery, that is, a judgment against them, before the condition is broken, and before any proceeding could be had upon the bond.

Now, there is manifest error in subjecting the parties to an injunction-bond, given in a proceeding in equity in a court of the United States, to the laws of the State. The proceeding in a circuit court of the United States in equity is regulated by the laws of Congress, and the rules of this court made under the authority of an act of Congress. And the 90th rule declares that, when not otherwise directed, the practice of the High Court of Chancery in England, shall be followed. The 8th rule authorizes the Circuit Court, both judges concurring, to modify the process and practice in their respective districts. But this applies only to forms of proceeding and mode of practice, and certainly would not authorize the adoption of the Louisiana law, defining the rights and obligations of parties to an injunction-bond. Nor do we suppose any such rule has been adopted by the court. And if it has, it is unauthorized by law, and cannot regulate the rights or obligations of the parties.

And when an injunction is applied for in the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in Louisiana, the court grant it or not, according to the established principles of equity, and not according to the laws and practice of the State in which there is no conrt of chancery, as contradistinguished from a court of common law. And they require a bond, or not, from the complainant, with sureties, before the injunction issues, as the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may deem it proper for the purposes of justice. And if, in the judgment of the court, the principles of equity require that a bond should be given, it prescribes the penalty and the condition also. And the condition prescribed by the court in this case, but which was not followed, is the one usually directed by the court.

In proceeding upon such a bond, the court would have no authority to apply to it the legislative provisions of the State. The obligors would be answerable for any damage or cost which the adverse party sustained, by reason of the injunction, from the time it was issued until it was dissolved, but to nothing more. They would certainly not be liable for any aggravated interest on the debt, nor for the debt itself, unless it was lost by the delay, nor for the fees paid to the counsel for conducting the suit.

But the bond, in the case before us, is not one to pay the damages which the opposing party should sustain by reason of the injunction, but it is to pay the damages that might be recovered against them; obviously referring, we think, to the practice in Louisiana above mentioned. A court proceeding, according to the rules of equity, cannot give a judgment against the obligors in an injunction-bond when it dissolves the injunction. It merely orders the dissolution, leaving the obligee to proceed at law against the sureties, if he sustains damage from the delay occasioned by the injunction. This was done by the Circuit Court in the former suit between the parties. No judgment was or could be given against the obligors for debt or damages, and none were recovered against them previously to the institution of this suit. The contingency on which they agreed to pay, has not, therefore, happened, and the condition of the bond is not broken, and consequently no action can be maintained upon it. It would be against the well-established rule of the chancery court to extend the liability of the surety, by any equitable construction, beyond the terms of his contract. And, in a proceeding upon the bond, the liability of the principal obligor cannot be extended beyond that of the surety.

In this view of the case, it is unnecessary to examine the questions which have been raised as to the Lousiana laws in relation to injunction-bonds. The judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Order.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Circuit Court for further proceedings to be had therein, in conformity to the opinion of this court.