Summary
The Supreme Court considers a petition for mandamus seeking to compel a federal circuit court to execute an ejectment judgment despite a writ of error and supersedeas bonds. It holds that the judgment was severable among the defendants, the bonds were sufficient for the portions of the judgment whose execution was stayed, and the defendants could join in the writ of error while separately seeking stays. The petition was denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants who jointly sued out a writ of error could obtain a supersedeas as to only the severable portions of the judgment applicable to particular defendants by filing separate bonds.
- Whether the amount of the supersedeas bonds was insufficient because it did not cover the aggregate amount of all monetary judgments against all defendants.
- Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy to compel the lower court to execute the entire judgment despite the writ of error and supersedeas orders.
Holdings
- A judgment in ejectment that is legally separate as between defendants for the parcels they respectively occupy and the damages they respectively owe may be severed for purposes of staying execution.
- The supersedeas bonds were sufficient when measured against the portions of the judgment whose execution they stayed; they were not required to cover the aggregate judgments against defendants who did not seek a stay.
- Defendants may join in a single writ of error to obtain review of the judgment and nevertheless separate when seeking supersedeas of execution as to only their individual portions of the judgment.
- Mandamus does not lie to compel execution of a judgment when the asserted error concerns the supersedeas; the proper remedy is a motion to vacate the writ of error, not mandamus.
Key quotations
“The writ and the supersedeas are two separate things, and the writ can be sustained without a supersedeas.” (100 U.S. 2)
“But if the writ is informal, the remedy is by motion to vacate the writ, and not by mandamus to have the judgment carried into execution.” (100 U.S. 3)
Factual background
French brought an ejectment action to recover a large tract of land from multiple defendants who separately possessed different portions of the property. The trial court entered a judgment for recovery of the entire tract and costs jointly against all defendants, while also entering separate damages judgments against individual defendants or groups based on their respective possession and withholding of particular parcels. Some defendants filed separate supersedeas bonds, and the trial court stayed execution only as to the portions of the judgment involving those defendants while allowing execution against the remaining defendants.
Procedural history
French obtained an ejectment judgment against multiple defendants for possession of land, costs, and separate damages. Several defendants jointly sued out a writ of error, and certain defendants separately filed approved supersedeas bonds covering the portions of the judgment applicable to their respective parcels and liabilities. The lower court stayed execution as to those defendants and permitted execution against the remaining defendants; after the lower court refused to vacate that order and direct complete execution, French sought mandamus in the Supreme Court.