Gay v. Parpart
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
These motions are founded on an alleged defect in the form of the condition of the bond. By sect. 1000 Rev. Stat., the security to be taken on a writ of error or an appeal, where the writ or the appeal is a supersedeas and stays execution, must be “ that the plaintiff in error or the appellant shall prosecute his writ or appeal to effect, and, if he fails to make his plea good, shall answer all damages and costs.” The condition of the bond in this case is, that the appellants “ shall duly prosecute their said appeal with effect, and, moreover, pay the amount *392 of costs and damages rendered and to be ren lered in case the decree shall be affirmed in said Supreme Courk”
. The objebt of the statutory requirement undoubtedly is to secure to the opposite party his damages ai d costs, in ease the judgment or decree shall not be reversed, ind that, we think, is the legal effect of this bond. If, on the final disposition of a writ of error or appeal, the juc gment or decree brought under review is not substantially reversed, it is affirmed and the writ of error or appeal has not been prosecuted with effect. In our opinion the language of the bond covers fully all the requirements of the statute. The motions to dismiss the appeal and vacate the supersedeas are, therefore, overruled.
The appellee has coupled with a motion to dismiss, a motion, under Rule 6, to affirm, because it is manifest that the appeal was taken for delay only. Clearly this is not a case for the application of that rule.
Motions denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals6
- Federal District Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Wichita Falls, Ranger & Ft. Worth Railway Co. v. Combs
- Rector v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co
- Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc.
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. Atlas MacHine & Iron Works, Inc. And Williams Enterprises, Inc., in Re Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
- Crane v. Buckley
- Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing and Lithographing Company and Federal Insurance Co.
Most recent
- Eshelman v. Auerbach
- Holt Group, L.L.C. v. Kellum
- Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc.
- Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing and Lithographing Company and Federal Insurance Co.
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. Atlas MacHine & Iron Works, Inc. And Williams Enterprises, Inc., in Re Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
- Scholz Homes, Inc. v. Lavern E. Larson
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.