Opinion of the Court.

pose of ending said litigation he accepted said money and compromised said case; that it was expressly agreed by the parties to that cause that said litigation was then ended, and that no appeal should be taken from the said decree and judgment of the Circuit Court. To this offer and evidence the defend ants objected on the ground that the papers in evidence constituted a contract in writing between the parties, and that no parol evidence impeaching them could be received. The court sustained the objection, and refused to hear the evidence, to which ruling the plaintiffs excepted.

It is not important to determine what effect, if any, should be given to the proceedings and order of the Circuit Court on the motion of the defendants Tuyes and Moulton to quash the execution issued on the decree against them. It does not appear from the record of these proceedings on what ground the judgment of the court was placed, and in its terms it is not final, as it merely quashes the particular writ of execution then in the marshal's hands, and directs him to take no further proceedings thereunder. If it had been based upon a finding of a payment of the decree, or of an accord and satisfaction equivalent to payment, and had directed satisfaction of the decree to be entered of record, as it clearly had power to do in such a proceeding, the judgment would have been conclusive as a defence to the bond in suit, notwithstanding the summary character of the proceeding. United States v. MeLemore, 4 How. 286; Perkins v. Fourniquet, 14 How. 328. But the introduction of the record of these proceedings as evidence did not prejudice the plaintiffs in error, for the other evidence in the cause, and which no doubt is the same on which the Circuit Court acted in that proceeding, shows an accord and satisfaction equivalent to a payment of the decree, and, in equity, to a satisfaction and discharge. It is so expressed in each of the papers executed at the time, which, although they are in one sense receipts acknowledging the payment of money, are also written evidence of an executed agreement by which the money was received in full payment and settlement of the decree and of the bond given for its payment now sued on. It is shown that the attorneys for the

Opinion of the Court.

owners of the Richmond, who signed those receipts, were fully authorized to do so. The 'contract in each case is with the individual defendant for a satisfaction of the decree rendered against him severally. The payment and receipt of the money in pursuance of the agreement amounted to a release of errors,, so that there was a valuable consideration to sustain the contract whereby a less sum than the amount due by the decree was received in full payment.

The offer on the part of the plaintiffs in error to prove by parol another condition of the contract, viz., that the other defendants, the owners of the steamboat Sabine, and the intervenors and other parties, the several insurance companies who had become parties to the appeal, should not take and perfect an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, was rightly rejected, because such parol evidence necessarily varied and contradicted the written agreement of the parties. The papers in evidence established a complete accord and satisfaction fully performed, in pursuance of an agreement to extinguish the liability of the defendants by reason of the original decree, and so to satisfy the obligation of the bond on which they are sued. The right of the defendants to appeal from the decree, and the fact that they had declared their intention to do so, created such a dispute in respect to their liability as made it a proper subject of compromise. A compromise was made and fully performed on their part; they paid the money, which was received in payment of the decree, and took no appeal. It is not now open to the plaintiffs in error to treat this payment merely as a credit on account and hold the defendants to their original liability. United States v. Child, 12 Wall. 232; Oglesby v. Attrill, 105 U. S. 605.

The technicality difficulty, that there can be no satisfaction and discharge of a judgment or decree, except by matter of record, Mitchell v. Hawley, 4 Denio, 414; S. C. 47 Am. Dec. 260, cannot be interposed. At common law actual payment of a debt of record could not be pleaded in bar of an action. for the recovery of the debt. This has been changed by statute both in England and in this country, and no reason can be assigned why an accord and satisfaction should not have

Counsel for Plaintiffs in Error.

the same effect. In the present case the action is not on the decree, but on the appeal bond, and for the recovery of damages arising from the breach, as to which matters in pais, such as payment or accord and satisfaction, were always a good plea.

MEYERS v. BLOCK.

MEYERS v. LEVI.

Judgment affirmed.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.

Argued December 15, 16, 1886. Decided January 31, 1887.

An injunction bond in an action in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana conditioned that the obligors "will well and truly pay the" obligee, "defendant in said injunction, all such damages as he may recover against us in case it should be decided that the said writ of injunction was wrongfully issued," which bond was made under an order of court, "that the injunction be maintained on the complaining creditors giving bond and security to save the parties harmless from the effects of said injunction" is a sufficient compliance with the order of the court, and when construed with reference to the rule prevailing in the Federal courts (contrary to that prevailing in the state courts of Louisiana), that without a bond and in the absence of malice no damages can be recovered in such case, means that the obligors will pay such damages as the obligee may recover against them in a suit on the boud itself, whether incurred before or after the giving of the bond. Bein v. Heath, 12 How. 168, distinguished.

THESE were actions at law in a state court of Louisiana against the obligors on an injunction bond given in an action brought in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. Judgments for plaintiff, which were affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state on appeal. Defendants sued out these writs of error. The facts which make the Federal question are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr John H. Kennard, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. William Wirt Howe was with him on the brief.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. Gus. A. Breaux for defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

These are suits on injunction bonds given by the plaintiffs in error to the defendants in error respectively, Friedlander being a surety.

On the 20th of January, 1874, Meyers & Levi, Lehman, Godchaux & Co., and Michael Frank filed a petition in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana to have their alleged debtors, Block Brothers, a firm composed of Simon and Joseph Block, declared bankrupts; and the petition charged, amongst other things, that the alleged bankrupts had, on the 9th of January preceding, sold a certain store of goods, situated at Opelousas, to Solomon Isaacs, their brotherin-law, with intent to defraud their creditors. At, or immediately after, the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the petitioning creditors filed a special petition for an injunction to prevent Isaacs from disposing of the store or its contents. A similar petition was filed against David Block, a brother of the members of the firm of Block Brothers, alleging that the bankrupts had sold to him another store of goods at Opelousas with intent to defraud their creditors. Writs of arrest and provisional seizure were issued against the bankrupts, and injunctions against Solomon Isaacs and David Block, in accordance with the prayers of the several petitions. Applications were immediately made by the parties to set these proceedings aside, and such a showing was presented to the District Court that on the 31st of January the following order was made, to wit:

"The rules to set aside the arrest, provisional seizure and injunction came up, when, after hearing the pleadings, evidence and arguments, it is ordered by the court that the writs of arrest and provisional seizure be set aside, but that the injunction be maintained on the complaining creditors giving bond and security to save the parties harmless from the effects of said injunction in such sum as will be fixed by the court upon ascertaining the value of the property, and to that

Opinion of the Court.

end the parties shall take their evidence before Register Kellogg."

Evidence having been taken under this order, the court, on the 7th of February, 1874, made the following order, to wit: "After hearing counsel on both sides, it is ordered by the court that the complaining creditors do give bond and security in the sum of $5000 in favor of Solomon Isaacs, and another bond in the sum of $1500 in favor of David Block, to save the parties harmless from the effects of the injunction issued in this cause."

Bonds were accordingly given in pursuance of these orders, and the injunctions were retained. Motions to dissolve them. however, were pressed, and after a large amount of evidence had been taken and laid before the court, they were dissolved on the merits on the 18th and 20th of March, 1874.

The bonds referred to were executed for the respective penalties required, but the conditions did not follow the precise terms of the orders. The bond given to Isaacs (with which that given to Block corresponded) was in the following words, to wit:

"Know all men by these presents that we, Meyers & Levi, Meyer Weill, Michael Frank, and Samuel Friedlander, are held and firmly bound, jointly and severally, unto Solomon Isaacs in the sum of five thousand dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid to the said Solomon, &c. Dated 19th February, 1874.

"Whereas the said Meyers & Levi, Meyer Weill, and Michael Frank have presented a petition to the honorable the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, praying for a writ of injunction against the said Solomon Isaacs: Now, the condition of the above obligation is, that we, the above bounden Meyers & Levi, Meyer Weill, and Michael Frank, and will well and truly pay to the said Solomon Isaacs, the defendant in said injunction, all such damages as he may recover against us in case it should be decided that the said writ of injunction was wrongfully issued.”

(Signed)

"MEYER WEILL, M. FRANK, LEHMAN, GODCHAUX

& Co., MEYERS & LEVI, SAM'L FRIEDLANDER.