TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

O'Neale v. Long

O’Neale v. Long

O'Neale v. Long, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 60 (1807)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 14, 1807
Judges
Marshall
Citations
8 U.S. 602 L. Ed. 5504 Cranch 601807 U.S. LEXIS 366
Headnotes
Bond. — Alteration.—Surety. If a bond be executed -by O., as a surety for S., to obtain an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the 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.1 Long v. O’Neale, 1 Cr. C. C. 233, reversed.
Summary
Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Washington, in an action of debt upon four joint and several bonds, signed and sealed by Mary Sweeny, as principal, and William O’Neale, 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 O’Neale, 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,” &c.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Marshall

Marshall, Ch. J., 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1833–1834: 11843–1844: 11845–1846: 11857–1858: 11869–1870: 11877–1878: 11885–1886: 11887–1888: 11903–1904: 11915–1916: 12019–2020: 12021–2022: 12023–2024: 118332026peak 1833 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. McCarty v. Pepper31 Ind. 76 (1869)
  2. Tucker v. Stewart97 N.W. 148 (Iowa 1903)
  3. Anderson v. Bellenger & Ralls87 Ala. 334 (1888)
  4. Yeager v. Musgrave28 W. Va. 90 (1886)
  5. State v. Hascall6 N.H. 352 (1833)
  6. Covert v. Shirk58 Ind. 264 (1877)

Most recent

  1. Moen v. MoenNo. 4:23-cv-00444 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2023)
  2. Wright v. Farmers InsuranceNo. 3:21-cv-05594 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2021)
  3. Eaton v. Cavalia (USA) Inc.No. 3:20-cv-05219 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2020)
  4. Keilsohn v. Slaton87 S.E. 297 (Ga. 1915)
  5. Tucker v. Stewart97 N.W. 148 (Iowa 1903)
  6. Anderson v. Bellenger & Ralls87 Ala. 334 (1888)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list