Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Wash. 204

Smith v. Beard

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1899

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1899-05-31

<p>Appeal from Superior Court, King County. — -Hon. E. D. Bewson, Judge.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The sureties on this bond are the parties against whom the judgment appealed from was entered, and the fact that they are a surety company does not distinguish them from any .of the rest of the judgment debtors. So that, in effect, this is a bond without any surety, and, inasmuch as it purports to be a stay bond and appeal bond both, it is not the bond provided by the statute. This being a matter affecting the substance, and not the form, of the appeal bond, it is a substantial defect, and is not such a defect as must be moved against in the superior court.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Den Bleyker v. King County

Relies on Fairfield v. Binnian · Northern Counties Investment Trust v. Hender · Puckett v. Moody

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1899-05-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1940

5 state decisions

20189919001910192019301940decided

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.

¶1Motion is made to strike the statement of facts and dismiss this appeal for the reason that all the parties who appeared in the case below and against whom the judgment was taken did not join in the appeal of appellants, or were not served with notice of appeal by the appellants. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed under the rule announced by this court in Winters v. Gray's Harbor Boom Co., 19 Wash. 346 (53 Pac. 368), and many other decisions of this court.

¶2A supplemental record has been filed by the appellants, but we think the showing therein made as to the service of parties upon whom service should be made is not sufficient. Fairfield v. Binnian, 13 Wash. 1 (42 Pac. 632); Puckett v. Moody, 17 Wash. 609 (50 Pac. 494).

¶3In any event, this case will have to be dismissed, for the reason that no appeal bond was given as required by statute. The sureties on this bond are the parties against whom the judgment appealed from was entered, and the fact that they are a surety company does not distinguish them from any of the rest of the judgment debtors. So that, in effect, this is a bond without any surety, and, inasmuch as it purports to be a stay bond and appeal bond both, it is not the bond provided by the statute. This heing a matter affecting the substance, and not the form, of the appeal bond, it is a substantial defect, and is not such á -defect as must he moved against in the superior *206court. Northern Counties Inv. Trust v. Hender, 12 Wash. 559 (41 Pac. 913).

¶4The appeal will he dismissed.

/21/wash/204 · .json · Public domain