Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Blackf. 51

Thom v. Savage

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1819

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1819-11-10

— A motion was made by the appellee to dismiss this case, because the appeal bond had not been executed, by the principal, but by the surety alone.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1819-11-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1896

6 state decisions

20181918201830184018501860187018801890decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1If sufficient security be given for the due pro» secution of the appeal, the statute requiring appeal bonds is in substance complied with. It would in many instances very improperly exclude a party from the privilege of appealing, if his own execution of the appeal bond could not be dispensed with (1).

¶2Motion overruled.

¶3 Ind. Stat. 1817, p. 7. — Acc. Ind. Stat. 1823, p. 131. By stat. 16 and 17 Car. 2. it is enacted, “that in writs of error brought upon any judgment after verdict, in any action of ejectione firmas, no execution shall be stayed, unless the plaintiff or plaintiffs in such writ of error, shall be bound unto the plaintiffin such action of ejectione firmae, in such reasonable sum as the Court, to which such writ of error shall be directed, shall think fit,” &c. conditioned, if the judgment be affirmed, &c., to pay costs, Sec. Even under this statute, it is not necessary for the plaintiff in error to be personally bound: if he procure proper sureties'to enter into the recognizance, it is sufficient. Keene v. Deardon, 8 East, 298. — Adamson Ejectment, 313, 314. — Vide also Dixon v. Dixon, 2 Bos. and Pull. 4&3. — Anonymous, Hardin, 149,

/1/blackf/51 · .json · Public domain