Smith v. Beard

Washington Supreme Court

Smith v. Beard

57 P. 796, 21 Wash. 204, 1899 Wash. LEXIS 261

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedMay 31, 1899

DocketNo. 3283

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 57 P. 796 (Smith v. Beard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Beard, 57 P. 796, 21 Wash. 204, 1899 Wash. LEXIS 261 (Wash. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

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

The appeal will he dismissed.

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

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

The appeal will he dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 P. 796, 21 Wash. 204, 1899 Wash. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-beard-wash-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack