Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Miss. 747

Coleman v. Rowe

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1840

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1840-01-15

A motion was made in this court to dismiss this appeal, for two reasons : 1. Because the appeal bond was not in conformity with the statute; its condition not being to perform the decree of the Chancellor, but to pay the judgment rendered at law, and which had been enjoined, in case of an affirmance. 2. Because the requisite number of sureties, required by the order of the Chancellor, are not parties to the bond.

Decided 1840-01-15

Per Curiam.

¶1This is an appeal from the superior court of *748chancery, which the appellee moves us to dismiss because the appeal bond does not conform to the statute, and because surety was not given according to the direction of the Chancellor.

¶2The condition required by the statute is that the appellant shall “ pay, satisfy and perform the decree or final order of the superior court of chancery, and all costs in case the same be affirmed.” The condition of this bond is, that if the appellant shall “ pay and satisfy the judgment so recovered against him at law, with interest and costs, and also abide by the decision of the high court of errors and appeals, then ” &c. The bond given only differs from the condition given by the statute in this; it is not conditioned to pay and satisfy the decree of the court of chancery, but it is conditioned to pay and satisfy the amount of the judgment at law. This arose from the necessity of the case. It was a bill to enjoin a judgment at law, and the decree from which the appeal is taken, was to dissolve the injunction. No other condition would have been proper, because the Chancellor made no decree for the payment of money. It is sufficient if an appeal bond substantially covers the provision in the statute, by securing to the appellee, all that the law designed for him. The language of the statute need not be adopted.

¶3The other objection is that the Chancellor named three persons as securities, and but two of them were given. In his first order he also named three persons. In the second he says, “ in addition to the sureties named in the original order granting an appeal, any two of them or the following persons, to wit, &c. are approved.” It may be doubtful whether the Chancellor intended to require more than two sureties. That is the usual number, and we do not feel authorized to dismiss the appeal where it is probable no more were intended to be required. No objection is made to the sufficiency of the sureties. The appellee seems to be secured, and that is the object of the bond.

¶4Motion overruled.

/12/miss/747 · .json · Public domain