Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
U.S. Supreme Court Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)

Martin v. Thomas

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5 U.S. (24 How.) 315

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Syllabus

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Page 65 U. S. 316

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

" Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

" Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Page 65 U. S. 317

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In Miller v. Stuart, 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

"Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Hunt's Adm. v. Adams, 6 Mass. 521.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The judgment is reversed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '80993',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
			'appellant' => 'Martin',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
			'court_type' => 'FN',
			'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="316">
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a class="page-number" id="317">
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a href="/case/79016/miller-vs-stewart#702">
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Thomas',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'martin-vs-thomas',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '80993',
		(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Martin Vs Thomas - Citation 80993 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '80993',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => '65 U.S. 315',
		'appellant' => 'Martin',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'MartIn Vs. Thomas',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'US Supreme Court',
		'court_type' => 'FN',
		'decidedon' => '1860-01-01',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
</p>
<p>
<b>
</b>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
</p>
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
</p>
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 </p>
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 </p>
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 </p>
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 </p>
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 </p>
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 </p>
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 </p>
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
</p>
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 </p>
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 </p>
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 </p>
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 </p>
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 </p>
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 </p>
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
</p>
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Thomas',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => '/cases/federal/us/65/315/',
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'martin-vs-thomas'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '80993',
	(int) 1 => 'martin-vs-thomas'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/80993/martin-vs-thomas'
$ctype = ''
$date = array(
	(int) 0 => 'Jan',
	(int) 1 => '01',
	(int) 2 => '1860'
)
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<html><head></head><body><div>


 Martin v. Thomas - 65 U.S. 315 (1860)
 
<br/>
<span>

 U.S. Supreme Court
 

 Martin v. Thomas, 65 U.S. 24 How. 315 315 (1860)
 
</span>

<p>
<b>
 Martin v. Thomas
 </b>
',
	(int) 1 => '
<p>
<b>
 5 U.S. (24 How.) 315
 </b>
',
	(int) 2 => '
<p>
<b>
</b>
',
	(int) 3 => '
<p>
<em>
 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
 </em>
',
	(int) 4 => '
<p>
<em>
 STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
 </em>
',
	(int) 5 => '
<p>
<em>
</em>
<em>
 Syllabus
 </em>
',
	(int) 6 => '
<p>
 Where there was an action of replevin in Wisconsin by virtue of which the property was seized by the marshal and a bond was given by the defendant in replevin, together with sureties, the object of which was to obtain the return of the property to the defendant, which bond was afterwards altered by the principal defendant's erasing his name from the bond, with the knowledge and consent of the marshal but without the knowledge or consent of the sureties, the bond was thereby rendered invalid against the sureties.
 ',
	(int) 7 => '
<p>
 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 8 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 316
 </a>
',
	(int) 9 => '
<p>
',
	(int) 10 => '
<p>
 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
 ',
	(int) 11 => '
<p>
 The action was replevin; the pleadings being filed, a jury was called, who rendered a verdict in damages for nine thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and ninety-six cents, with costs.
 ',
	(int) 12 => '
<p>
 In the course of the trial, a bill of exceptions was filed on which the questions of law were raised.
 ',
	(int) 13 => '
<p>
 "Be it remembered that at the trial of the above-entitled action, the plaintiff produced an instrument in writing in the words and figures, and with interlineations and erasures following, to-wit:"
 ',
	(int) 14 => '
<p>
 " Know all men by these presents, that we and John T. Martin and John Keefe, and Andrew Proudfit, are held and firmly bound unto Major J. Thomas, Marshal of the United States for the Wisconsin District, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be paid &c.;"
 ',
	(int) 15 => '
<p>
 " Whereas the defendants have required the return of property replevied by the marshal at the suit of George T. Rogers against Henry M. Remington and John T. Martin, Jun.; now
 ',
	(int) 16 => '
<p>
<a>
 Page 65 U. S. 317
 </a>
',
	(int) 17 => '
<p>
 the condition of this obligation is such that if the said defendants in said suit shall deliver to the marshal said property, if such delivery be adjudged, and shall pay to him such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the defendants, then this obligation to be void."
 ',
	(int) 18 => '
<p>
 The bond upon which judgment was recovered was void as against the defendants because after the same was executed by them as sureties, Remington, their principal, without their knowledge or consent, and with the consent of the marshal, erased his name from the bond.
 ',
	(int) 19 => '
<p>
 In
 <em>
<span>
<a>
 Miller v. Stuart,
 </a>
</span>
</em>
 9 Wheat. 702, Mr. justice Story said
 ',
	(int) 20 => '
<p>
 "Nothing can be clearer, both upon principle and authority, than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication, beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent and in the manner and under the circumstances pointed out in the obligation, he is bound, and no further. It is not sufficient that he may sustain no injury by a change in the contract, or that it may be for his benefit. He has a right to stand upon the very terms of his contract, and if he does not assent to any variation of it and an alteration of it is made, it is fatal."
 ',
	(int) 21 => '
<p>
<em>
 Hunt's Adm. v. Adams,
 </em>
 6 Mass. 521.
 ',
	(int) 22 => '
<p>
 2. After the execution of the bond by the defendants, to be delivered to the marshal, it was refused and disagreed to by him, and it thereby became void. Any subsequent alteration would require a new deed or positive assent to the same, to make it valid against the defendants.
 ',
	(int) 23 => '
<p>
 Sheppard's Touchstone, 70, 394.
 ',
	(int) 24 => '
<p>
<em>
 The judgment is reversed.
 </em>
',
	(int) 25 => '
<br/>
<br/>
</div></body></html>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Court	US Supreme Court
Decided On	1860
Case Number	65 U.S. 315
Appellant	Martin
Respondent	Thomas

MartIn Vs. Thomas - Court Judgment