Wermeling v. Wermeling

224 Ky. 107
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedApril 17, 1928
StatusPublished

This text of 224 Ky. 107 (Wermeling v. Wermeling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wermeling v. Wermeling, 224 Ky. 107 (Ky. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Willis

Dismissing appeal.

The motions submitted in this case raise questions of appellate practice upon which we have concluded to review our decisions and restate the principles deducible therefrom.

On May 9, 1925, Margaret Wermeling recovered in the Jefferson circuit court a judgment for money against Henry Wermeling. An appeal to this court was granted by the lower court on May 28, 1925, and a supersedeas bond was executed before the clerk on the same date and supersedeas issued.

A transcript of the record was filed in this court on September 21,1925, but instead of prosecuting the appeal granted by the circuit court, as he might have done, the appellant then sought and was granted an appeal by the clerk of this court. The latter appeal was submitted on January 6, 1926, and the judgment was thereafter affirmed. Wermeling v. Wermeling, 217 Ky. 126, 288 S. W. 1050.

The appellee, on February 3, 1928, entered a motion in this court to dismiss the appeal granted by the lower court, and abandoned by the appellant. The motion was overruled on the authority of Nickell v. Citizens’ Bank of Kuttawa, 109 Ky. 641, 60 S. W. 408, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 3257. Thereafter, during the same term of this court, a motion was made to dismiss the appeal granted by the clerk of this court in which the judgment of affirmance was entered, and upon consideration thereof the court denied the motion, 'but then set aside its previous order [110]*110overruling the motion to dismiss the appeal granted by the ercuit court, and dismissed that appeal with damages. The court also directed that this opinion be prepared.

It is provided by section 734 of the Civil Code that an appeal shall be granted as a matter of right to a party or privy against a party or privy by the court rendering the judgment, on motion made during the term at which it is rendered, or thereafter, by the clerk of the Court of Appeals, on application of either party or his privy, upon filing in the office of the clerk a copy of the judgment from which he appeals. By section 1014, Kentucky Statutes, courts of continuous sessions are authorized to grant appeals within 60 days after the judgment. Appellant is required by 'section 739 of the Code to file a statement of the facts there indicated.

When a motion for a new trial is filed within the time allowed by section 342 of the Civil Code, the judgment is suspended. Louisville R. & L. Co. v. Kerr, 78 Ky. 12; Harper v. Harper, 10 Bush, 447; Turner v. Johnson, 35 S. W. 923, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 202; Miller, Appellate Practice, section 53.

It is therefore held that the circuit court may grant .an appeal on motion at the term of court at which the judgment becomes final by the denial of motion for a new trial, and, in courts of continuous session, within 60 days thereafter. Wright v. Woolfolk, 14 Bush, 308; Roemele v. Schmidt, 138 Ky. 336, 128 S. W. 65; Louisville Chemical Works v. Com., 8 Bush, 179; American Accident Co, v. Reigart, 92 Ky. 142, 17 S. W. 280, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 442; City of Louisville v. Muldoon, 43 S. W. 876, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1386.

During the term of court at which a judgment is rendered, or the motion for a new trial is overruled, the power of the circuit court to grant an appeal is exclusive, and until that term or time expires, no appeal can be granted by the clerk of this court. Kelly v. Toney, 95 Ky. 338, 25 S. W. 264, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 718; Schmidt v. Mitchell, 95 Ky. 344, 25 S. W. 278, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 768; American Accident Co. v. Reigart, 92 Ky. 142, 17 S. W. 280, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 442; City of Newport v. Newport Graslight Co., 92 Ky. 445, 17 S. W. 435, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 532.

But after the expiration of the term of the circuit court at which the judgment was rendered, or became [111]*111final, the exclusive right to grant an appeal rests with the' clerk of the Court of Appeals. Authorities, supra, Wearen v. Smith, 80 Ky. 216.

If the circuit court attempts to grant an appeal after the term when the judgment became final, the act is a nullity and a supersedeas bond executed before the circuit clerk upon such a void order is likewise a nullity and may be disregarded. City of Bowling Green v. Elrod, 14 Bush, 217; Dougherty v. Central Trust Co. Ex., 155 Ky. 380, 159 S. W. 777; Wright v. Woolfolk, 14 Bush, 310; Roemele v. Schmidt, 138 Ky. 336, 128 S. W. 65; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith’s Adm’r, 178 Ky. 681, 199 S. W. 805.

When an appeal has been granted by the court rendering the judgment within the time allowed by section 734 of the Code, or section 1014, Ky. Stats., as construed, in the cases cited, a supersedeas bond may be executed before the clerk of that court at any time before the expiration of the limit fixed by section 738 of the Civil Code for filing the transcript in this court. Civil Code, sec. 748. But a bond executed before the appeal is granted, or after the time fixed for filing the transcript by section 738 of the Code has expired is void. Wilson v. Hite, 154 Ky. 61, 157 S. W. 41; Roemele v. Schmidt, 138 Ky. 336, 128 S. W. 65; City of Ashland v. Stewart, 214 Ky. 682, 283 S. W. 1012; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith’s Adm’r, 178 Ky. 681, 199 S. W. 805.

The execution of the supersedeas bond, and issual of the supersedeas, suspends all rights under the judgment until the appeal is disposed of by the action of this court. Weber v. Tanner, 64 S. W. 741, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1107; Townsend v. Gorin, 144 Ky. 671, 139 S. W. 865; Thompson v. Haden, 177 Ky. 841, 198 S. W. 231; Fuson v. Lambdin, 64 S. W. 448, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 840.

After an appeal has been properly granted, whether by the lower court or by the clerk of this court, the appellant must file the transcript of the record in the office of the clerk of this court at least 20 days before the first day of the second term of the Court of Appeals next after the granting of the appeal, unless the Court of Appeals extends the time, as it may do for cause shown. Civil Code, sec. 738.

Under this section of the Code it is incumbent on the appellant to file the transcript within the time fixed, or obtain within that time, an extension for that purpose. Unless the time is extended by this court, the transcript [112]*112cannot be filed after the time expires, nor can this court then make an extension of time. Sandy River Cannel-Coal Co. v. Caudell, 108 Ky. 197, 56 S. W. 18, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1647; Hernstein v. Depue, 65 S. W. 805, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1498; Langhorn v. Wiley, 120 Ky. 511, 87 S. W. 266, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 908; Williamson v. Maynard, 135 Ky. 29, 121 S. W. 967; Willis v. Witt (Ky.) 124 S. W. 362; Hays v. Jenkins, 190 Ky. 518, 227 S. W. 797; Kudelle v. Vizzard Inv. Co., 194 Ky. 604, 240 S. W. 54; Security Life Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 176 Ky. 724, 197 S. W. 539.

Section 740 of the Civil Code provides:

“No appeal shall be docketed by the clerk until the appellant complies with the provisions of section 739, and if he fail to file the transcript within the time allowed by section 738, or by the court pursuant thereto, his appeal shall be dismissed.”

This direction of the Code is mandatory. Kudelle v. Vizzard Inv. Co., 194 Ky. 604, 240 S. W. 54; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Johnson, 100 Ky. 589, 38 S. W. 1043, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 982; Home Building Ass’n v. Bruner, 134 Ky. 361, 120 S. W. 306; Edleson v. Edleson, 173 Ky. 252, 190 S. W. 1083; McCallister v. Stanley, 186 Ky. 836, 218 S. W. 237; Proctor v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 192 Ky. 330, 233 S. W. 736; Calvert v. Wilder, 180 Ky.

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

Related

City of Ashland v. Stewart, Trustee
283 S.W. 1012 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)
Henry Wermeling v. Margaret Wermeling
288 S.W. 1050 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)
Wheeler v. Tyler Southeastern Railway Co.
43 S.W. 876 (Texas Supreme Court, 1898)
Bixler's adm'x v. Parker
66 Ky. 166 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1867)
Reed v. Lander
68 Ky. 598 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1869)
Louisville Chemical Works v. Commonwealth
71 Ky. 179 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1871)
Louisville Rock & Lime Co. v. Kerr
78 Ky. 12 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1879)
Wearen v. Smith
80 Ky. 216 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1882)
Russell v. Doyle
1 S.W. 604 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1886)
American Accident Co. v. Reigart
17 S.W. 280 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1891)
City of Newport v. Newport Light Co.
17 S.W. 435 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1891)
Kelly v. Toney
25 S.W. 264 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1894)
Schmidt v. Mitchell
25 S.W. 278 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1894)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Johnson
38 S.W. 1043 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1897)
Welch v. National Cash Register Co.
44 S.W. 640 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1898)
Sandy River Cannel Coal Co. v. Caudell
56 S.W. 18 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1900)
Nickell v. Citizens Bank of Kuttawa
60 S.W. 408 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1901)
O'Daniel v. Baxter
65 S.W. 805 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1901)
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Lucas' Adm'r
86 S.W. 682 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1905)
Langhorn, Johnson & Co. v. Wiley
87 S.W. 266 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 Ky. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wermeling-v-wermeling-kyctapp-1928.