TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Beard

R. H. Smith v. Isaac F. Beard

Smith v. Beard, 57 P. 796 (Wash. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 31, 1899
Docket
No. 3283
Citations
57 P. 79621 Wash. 2041899 Wash. LEXIS 261
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL-JOINDER OE PARTIES — DISMISSAL. An appeal will be dismissed where all the parties who appeared in the case below and against whom judgment was taken did not join in the appeal, or were not served with notice of appeal. SAME-SUFFICIENCY OF BOND-SURETIES. An appeal will be dismissed where the sureties upon the bond, which purports to be both a stay bond and and appeal bond, are the parties against whom the judgment was entered; and the fact that they constitute a surety company does not distinguish them from any of the other judgment debtors.
Summary
Appeal from Superior Court, King County. — -Hon. E. D. Bewson, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Motion 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.

A 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 ).

In 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 *206 court. Northern Counties Inv. Trust v. Hender, 12 Wash. 559 ( 41 Pac. 913 ).

The appeal will he dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 11908: 11919: 11932: 11935: 11937: 11940: 11947: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Den Bleyker v. King County108 Wash. 687 (1919)
  2. Sipes v. Puget Sound Electric Railway Co.97 P. 723 (Wash. 1908)
  3. Deno v. Standard Furniture Co.66 P.2d 1158 (Wash. 1937) · Dissent
  4. Universal Automobile Ins. Co. v. Culberson51 S.W.2d 1071 (Tex. App. 1932)
  5. Hinton v. Carmody45 P.2d 32 (Wash. 1935)
  6. David v. Guich70 P. 497 (Wash. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Williams v. J.E. Walton32 So. 2d 131 (Miss. 1947)
  2. Boris v. Ross106 P.2d 1081 (Wash. 1940)
  3. Deno v. Standard Furniture Co.66 P.2d 1158 (Wash. 1937) · Dissent
  4. Hinton v. Carmody45 P.2d 32 (Wash. 1935)
  5. Universal Automobile Ins. Co. v. Culberson51 S.W.2d 1071 (Tex. App. 1932)
  6. Den Bleyker v. King County108 Wash. 687 (1919)

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.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Fairfield v. Binnian, 42 P. 632 (Wash. 1895) 16
Northern Counties Inv. Trust v. Hender, 41 P. 913 (Wash. 1895) 10
Puckett v. Moody, 50 P. 494 (Wash. 1897) 5
Winters v. Gray's Harbor Boom Co., 53 P. 368 (Wash. 1898) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list