Syllabus. GRISWOLD v. HAZARD. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. GRISWOLD v. HAZARD.. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. GRISWOLD v. HAZARD. GRISWOLD v. HAZARD. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. Nos. 50, 53, 51, 52. Argued and submitted April 10, 13, 1891. — Decided May 25, 1891. An admitted or clearly established misapprehension of law in the making of a contract creates a basis for the interference of a court of equity, resting on its discretion, and to be exercised only in unquestionable and flagrant cases. Whether laches is to be imputed to a party seeking the aid of a court of equity depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. In this case it is held on the evidence that the bond given by Griswold in the ne exeat proceeding conditioned that the defendant in that proceeding should" abide and perform the orders and decrees" of the court was executed by him under such an, apprehension of the obligations in law assumed by him in executing and delivering it, as to make it the duty of a court of equity to reform it so as to make him liable for the penal sum named, only in the event that the principal fail to appear and become subject to the orders and decrees of the court; but that, the defendant in the suit in which the ne exeat was issued having died, and such a decree being therefore inappropriate, and Griswold being guilty of no laches, a decree should be entered perpetually enjoining the prosecution of any action, suit or proceeding to make him liable in any sum on or by reason of said bond. In the action at law upon the bond given in the ne exeat proceedings (No. 53) the court erred in ordering the amended pleas to be stricken from the files. D. was sued in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island by stockholders in the Crédit Mobilier for an accounting and payment of what might be found Statement of the Case. due on the accounting, for securities and moneys coming into his hands as president of the Crédit Mobilier. The receiver of that company in Pennsylvania released him from such liability. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island would not allow that release to be interposed as a defence. Held, that the error, if any, in this respect could not be corrected by bill in equity filed by a surety on a bond given to release D. when arrested on ne exeat proceedings in that Rhode Island suit. A pleading presenting only a question of error in a judgment of a state court does not go to the jurisdiction. THE first of the above suits was brought by Griswold, a citizen of New York, against the appellees, citizens of Rhode Island, to obtain a decree cancelling, or (if relief of that character could not be granted) reforming a certain bond, for the sum of $53,735, executed by Thomas C. Durant, as principal, and Griswold and S. D. Bradford, as his sureties. It was heard upon bill, answer and proofs, and the bill was dis missed. The action at law, No. 53, was brought by the appellees against Griswold upon the above bond in one of the courts of Rhode Island, and was removed, upon his petition, to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island, where a judgment was rendered against him for the sum of $66,470. The other two cases, Nos. 51 and 52, were suits in equity brought by Griswold, pending the action at law in the Circuit Court, to obtain an injunction against its further prosecution. The relief asked, in each of those suits, was denied, and the bills were dismissed. All of the cases have their origin in a suit in equity brought, August 22, 1868, in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, by Isaac P. Hazard, of that State, against Thomas C. Durant, Oliver Ames, Benjamin E. Bates, John Duff, Cornelius S. Bushnell, Sidney Dillon, Henry S. McComb, the Crédit Mobilier of America, a Pennsylvania corporation, and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation created by acts of Congress. Hazard sued on behalf of himself and all other stockholders in the first-named corporation who should become parties to his bill. Durant, from an early date in 1864 until May 18, 1867, was president of the Crédit Mobilier of America, having, it Statement of the Case. was alleged, to a great extent, the management of its affairs and the confidence of its directors and trustees, as well as the control of its finances and disbursements, and of its treasurer, clerks and servants. The theory of the bill was that he had acquired a large amount of the stock of the Crédit Mobilier of America upon which dividends had been paid in money and in the stock and bonds of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the amount of such bonds exceeding, it was alleged, seven hundred thousand dollars, and the amount of such stock of the last-named corporation being nearly two millions of dollars; and that the shares of stock, bonds and moneys, so received by him, belonged equitably to the Crédit Mobilier of America and its stockholders. The bill alleged that Durant's pecuniary condition was precarious; that he was, and for a long time had been, largely engaged in hazardous speculations and financial operations, sustaining thereby heavy losses, and liable to sustain others; that any recovery against him, it was feared, could not be enforced by execution or the ordinary process of law; that he was "about to depart out of the State and out of the jurisdiction of this court;" and that the defendants, (the individual defendants being sued as trustees in a certain contract with the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the profits of which belonged to the Crédit Mobilier of America and its stockholders,) "though requested so to do," had wholly neglected and refused to take any steps to compel him to account for said moneys, stocks and bonds, so received and improperly appropriated. The principal relief asked was that Durant be required to pay over and deliver to the Crédit Mobilier of America and the plaintiff Hazard such sums of money and shares of stock as should appear upon an accounting to be justly due or belonging to that corporation and to Hazard, and to make such transfer of the stock and bonds as would fully protect its and his rights in the premises; that the amounts ascertained to be due be adjudged a lien upon the shares in the stock of each of said corporations, owned or held by, or standing in the name of, Durant, as well as upon the above contract assigned to the Statement of the Case. defendant trustees, and the dividends, earnings, stocks and bonds received or to be received by virtue of that contract, to the extent of the shares to which Durant might be entitled under it; and that on default in the payment and delivery of the moneys, stocks and bonds so found due, all such stocks and bonds be sold under the direction of the court, or otherwise transferred and apportioned equitably among the rightful owners and claimants thereof; and that such stock, bonds, moneys, interest and rights, so procured by Durant, be deemed and taken as the rightful property of the Crédit Mobilier of America and its stockholders. The bill prayed that Durant be restrained from departing out of the State, and out of the jurisdiction of the court, by writ of ne exeat, issued under its seal and by its order. A writ of ne exeat was ordered to be issued, August 22, 1868, for $53,735. It was in these words: "Whereas it is represented to our Supreme Court, sitting in equity, on the part of Isaac P. Hazard and others, complainants, against Thomas C. Durant and others, defendants, that said Thomas C. Durant is greatly indebted to the said complainants, and designs quickly to go into other parts beyond this State, (as by oath made in that behalf appears,) which tends to the great prejudice and damage of the said complainants: Therefore, in order to prevent this injustice, we hereby command you that you do, without delay, cause the said Thomas C. Durant to come before you and give sufficient bail or security, in the sum of fifty-three thousand seven hundred and thirty-five dollars, that he, said Thomas C. Durant, will not go or attempt to go into parts beyond this State without the leave of our said court; and in case the said Thomas C. Durant shall refuse to give such bail or security, then you are to commit him, the said Durant, to our county jail, in your precinct, there to be kept in safe custody until he shall do it of his own accord; and when you shall have taken such security you are forthwith to make and return a certificate thereof to our said court, distinctly and plainly, under your hand, together with this writ." Durant was arrested under this writ on the night of August Statement of the Case. 22, 1868, and on the 24th he executed, with Griswold and Bradford, as his sureties, the following bond, drawn by one of Hazard's attorneys: "Know all men that we, Thomas C. Durant, as principal, and John N. A. Griswold and S. Dexter Bradford, as sureties, are firmly bound to Isaac P. Hazard, Rowland Hazard, Rowland G. Hazard, Elizabeth Hazard, Elizabeth Hazard, trustee, Anna Hazard, Mary P. Hazard, Lydia Torrey, Sophia Vernon and Anna Horner in the sum of fifty-three thousand seven hundred and thirty-five dollars, to be paid said obligees, their executors, administrators or assigns; to which payment we bind ourselves, our several and respective heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, hereby. "Sealed with our seals and dated this 24th day of August, A.D. 1868. "The condition of this obligation is that said Thomas C. Durant shall on his part abide and perform the orders and decrees of the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island in the suit in equity of Isaac P. Hazard and others against said Thomas C. Durant and others, now pending in said court within and for the county of Newport." This is the bond above referred to. Under the latter date, and presumbly before the execution of that bond, the attorneys of Hazard and Durant signed the following agreement: "In the above-entitled case it is agreed that said Thomas C. Durant shall file a bond, with surety in the penalty marked in the writ of ne exeat therein, to abide and perform the orders and decrees of the court in said cause, and that thereupon the writ of ne exeat aforesaid shall be discharged, and that the court may enter decree accordingly." The court, under the same date, entered the following order: "Thomas C. Durant, one of the defendants in this suit, having executed and filed a bond, with sureties, to abide and perform the orders and decrees of the court made in this suit, it is now, by consent, ordered that the writ of ne exeat heretofore issued be discharged." For some reason, not explained, the writ of ne exeat was not returned to the clerk's office and filed until October 21, 1868. The sheriff made this return on the |