Hewitt v. Lansdale

67 P. 354, 26 Wash. 615, 1901 Wash. LEXIS 696
Washington Supreme Court·Decided December 16, 1901·No. No. 3755·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A motion to dismiss the appeal was taken with the record. The objection by respondents is that the appeal bond is defective. The judgment of the superior court was against the appellants, and for dismissal of the action, with costs taxed in the sum of $53. The appeal bond is in the sum of $200, and is conditioned that appellants “shall pay all costs and damages that may he awarded against them on such appeal or dismissal thereof, not exceeding the sum of $200.” But the bond here goes further and contains the following conditions; “And shall perform and satisfy any judgment which said court may make or order to he made or rendered by the superior court in case said judgment is affirmed.” Evidently there are con[616] ditions for both, an appeal and stay bond, and under the uniform construction of such bonds by this court it is insufficient ,to maintain the appeal.

Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hewitt v. Lansdale, 67 P. 354, 26 Wash. 615, 1901 Wash. LEXIS 696 (Wash. 1901).

67 P. 354 (Hewitt v. Lansdale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Porter
119 P. 824 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
King v. Branscheid
73 P. 668 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)