233 F. 125 | E.D. Pa. | 1916
The argument earnestly pressed upon our attention by counsel for defendants has for its basis (if, indeed, under the cases above cited, that will support it) the averment that this bond is the statutory bond prescribed by the act of Congress. This feature was discussed in the opinion rendered in disposing of the rule for judgment'. To the view then expressed we adhere. It is confirmed by the ruling in the Illinois Surety Co. Cases, handed down since the former ruling in this case.
We have disposed of the case on the understanding that trial by jury has been waived, and that the case was heard by the court sitting without a jury by agreement, in accordance with the Revised Statutes, and that the facts admitted in the argument appear by stipulation. Mention is made of this, because such a stipulation in form is not actually before us.
The conclusion reached is embraced in the finding as a conclusion of law that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the sum of $1,000, with costs; and judgment is so rendered.
<gs»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests & indexes