Smith v. Beard
R. H. Smith v. Isaac F. Beard
Syllabus
Summary
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.
Cited by 8 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.