Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Mo. 385

Bailey v. Rosenthal

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1874-03-15

<p>I. Justices’ courts — Appeal—Sureties—Noti-suit.—Where defendant appealed from the judgment of a justice, and in the Circuit Court plaintiff took a voluntary nou-3uit, which was afterwards set aside without the knowledge or consent of the sureties on the appeal bond, and plaintiff had judgment against defendant and his sureties. Meld, that the sureties were bound by the judgment.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1923

5 state decisions

20187418801890190019101920decided

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 →

Adams, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace,where plaintiff had judgment, from which the defendant appealed to the.Circuit Court.

¶3During the pendency of the case in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff took a voluntary non-suit, which during the term was, by the consent of the parties, set aside without consulting the sureties on the appeal bond. The case was tried and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which was entered up against the defendant and his sureties in the appeal bond. The defendant and one of the sureties in the appeal bond appealed to the General Term, which affirmed the judgment at Special Term,and they have appealed to this court. No formal assignment of errors has been filed, and the only error assigned in the brief for defendants, and relied on here for reversal, is, that the court permitted the non-suit to be set aside without the consent of the sureties in the appeal bond. •It has never been held in this State, that sureties in an appeal bond are parties to the suit, in the sense that they must be consulted in regard to any step taken in the case before final judgment. If there be any substantial defect in the recognizance, they may object to any judgment being rendered against them, or they m'ay appeal from such judgment, and have the point determined by this court. • .

¶4*386The recognizance, required by our statute on appeals from justices of the peace, is to secure to the appellee the payment of any judgment that may be rendered in his favor against the appellant. (See 2 Wagn. Stat., 847, §§ 3, 4; 851, § 23.) It does not contemplate that the sureties in the recognizance shall prosecute or defend the suit, or in any manner interfere with the proceedings during the progress of the case.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

All the judges concur.
/56/mo/385 · .json · Public domain