Town of Sumner v. Rogers

58 P. 214, 21 Wash. 361, 1899 Wash. LEXIS 291
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1899
DocketNo. 3288
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 58 P. 214 (Town of Sumner v. Rogers) 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
Town of Sumner v. Rogers, 58 P. 214, 21 Wash. 361, 1899 Wash. LEXIS 291 (Wash. 1899).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent recovered a money judgment against appellant for $525. Hotice of appeal was thereupon given by appellant, and in the bond executed and filed the penalty was fixed at $100. The bond is conditioned for the payment of all costs and damages that may be awarded against appellant on appeal or on the dismissal thereof, and to satisfy and perform the judgment or order appealed from if the case should be affirmed, and satisfy and perform any judgment or order which the court may enter or make. The bond is evidently intended as both a bond on appeal and to supersede the judgment in the superior court. The record discloses that, after the judgment was entered, the respondent applied for a further order of the court directing the payment of the judgment to the respondent, and that appellant resisted the order because the bond was sufficient to stay all further proceedings. At any rate, the bbnd has accomplished the purposes of a stay. But the penalty is not sufficient for the two bonds, which may be included in one. The bond [362]*362on appeal is required to be in tbe sum of $200, and, according to § 7, p. 122, Laws 1893, in order to effect a stay of proceedings on a final judgment for tbe recovery of money, tbe bond must be in penalty double tbe amount of tbe damages and costs recovered in sucb judgment. Tbe respondent moves to dismiss tbe appeal. It is manifest that the motion must be granted upon tbe • authority of Pierce v. Willeby, 20 Wash. 129 (54 Pac. 999). Dismissed.

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

Related

Okanogan Valley Bank v. Evans
109 P. 795 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)
Washington Water Power Co. v. Abacus Ass'n
94 P. 1072 (Washington Supreme Court, 1908)
Edminston v. Steele
87 P. 677 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1906)
Hawthorn v. Washington & Great Western Railway Co.
74 P. 1135 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
Winchester v. Morris
74 P. 361 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
Loy v. Coey
71 P. 552 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
Graham v. American Surety Co.
69 P. 365 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. McDonnell
68 P. 890 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Ritchey v. Cedar Mill Co.
61 P. 160 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
Beezley v. Sessions
60 P. 130 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
Galloway v. Tjossem
60 P. 129 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 P. 214, 21 Wash. 361, 1899 Wash. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-sumner-v-rogers-wash-1899.