Inbusch v. Farwell

Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

66 U.S. 566

Inbusch  v.  Farwell

Writ of error to the District Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin.

James Buchanan, Henry Eastman, and Patten McMillan were partners trading under the firm of Buchanan, Eastman & Co. Charles B. Farwell was a creditor of the firm, and commenced an action in the District Court against all the partners by summons, with attachment. The marshal attached personal property of the partnership, and served the summons on Buchanan and McMillan. Afterwards, all three of the defendants appeared to the action. A bond was executed by James Buchanan, John G. Inbusch, and John D. Inbusch, referring to the action, reciting the attachment of the defendants' goods, and conditioned for the payment of the amount of the judgment that might be recovered against the defendants. On filing this bond an order was made to release the defendants' goods, which was done. Subsequently, it being made to appear that two of the defendants, Buchanan and Eastman, were citizens of Illinois, the plaintiff discontinued his action as to them for want of jurisdiction in the court. The death of the other defendant was suggested, and his administrator was substituted. The action proceeded against the administrator of McMillan to verdict and judgment.

The present suit is against John D. Inbusch and John G. Inbusch on the bond in which they were sureties, and on which the goods of Buchanan, Eastman & Co. were released from the custody of the marshal. The defence was that the plaintiff had not recovered judgment against the defendants, and therefore the condition of the bond was not broken. But the judge of the District Court refused so to charge the jury, and ruled that the suit would lie on the bond to recover the amount of the judgment rendered against the administrator of McMillan, one of the defendants. Verdict and judgment were accordingly given for the plaintiff, and the defendants took their writ of error.

Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Hawley, of Illinois, and Mr. Stanbery, of Ohio, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).