Works v. Tiber
Robert M. Works v. Leon J. Tiber and Another. [Fn1]
Opinion of the Court
Dibeud, J.
Action for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by the defendants to one Mott which contract was assigned by Mott to the plaintiff. Upon the motion of the defendants Mott and one Honn were made parties. Honn and the plaintiff appeal separately from the order.
The two appellants filed a cost bond, not a supersedeas. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff and Honn. This was the situation when the appeal was heard.
It was for the plaintiff and Honn, if they desired to stay further proceedings pending the appeal, to file a supersedeas bond. Not de *173 siring to do so they could preserve their rights by proper objections at the trial. If the order were reversed it would not affect the judgment. The only use to the plaintiff and Honn of a determination of this appeal on its merits is its use as a precedent, if favorable to them, on their appeal from the judgment, if they take one. We make precedents only as incident to the determination of actual controversies. The question is in the nature of a moot one. See Ann. Cas. 1918B, 554, 558-560.
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.