U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1931

United States v. Olson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided March 6, 1931 · Stone

47 F.2d 1070; 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3625 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

O. A. Blanchard, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn. (Lewis L. Drill, U. S. Atty., and Chester L. Kraft, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of St. Paul, Minn., on the brief), for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Insurance Agency, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2010)
ALLIED FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY (Board of Immigration Appeals 1984)
Bongiovanni v. Ward (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1943)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

STONE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying recovery on a bond made to release from custody an alien under a deportation charge.

The only matter presented here is the claimed error of the court in denying recovery on the bond because the alien, who is named as principal in the bond, did not sign it, although appellee did.'

A deportation proceeding is not of a criminal nature. Gambroulis v. Nash, 12 F. (2d) 49, 51, this court. This bond was given under the statute (USCA title 8, § 156), which does not require signature of the alien thereon, and is in the nature of a custody or delivery bond. It is a contract between the United States on one hand and the signers thereof on the other. Reese v. U. S., 9 Wall. 13, 18, 21, 19 L. Ed. 541; U. S. v. Zarafonitis (C. C. A. 5) 150 F. 97, 99, 10 Ann. Cas. 290. The thing sought to be accomplished by the bond was the delivery, by the signers thereof, of the alien for any hearings on the deportation charge. The signature of the principal neither added nor took away from the obligations of this undertaking. Ewing v. U. S., 240 F. 241, 252 (C. C. A. 6). This position is sustained by Ewing v. U. S., 240 F. 241 (6 C. C. A.); McClellan v. Pyeatt, 49 F. 259 (this court); Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 11 L. Ed. 251; and many eases from the state courts.

Another reason why appellee cannot profit from this situation is that he secured the consideration moving from the United States (the release of the alien), and cannot now be heard to question his own obligation on which he secured this release. Hunt v. U. S., 61 F. 795, 800, this court.

The judgment is reversed and ’remanded for a new trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.