Case ID: wash_12/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Scott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 1726.
    Decided May 27, 1895.]
    J. D. Spurlock, Respondent, v. Port Townsend Southern Railroad Company, Appellant.
    
    APPEAL BOND—INSUFFICIENCY—SUBSTITUTION OF NEW BOND.
    Where objection is made to the sufficiency of the sureties upon an appeal bond, the filing of a new bond by the appellant within the time required by the statute, instead of presenting his sureties for examination, is a sufficient compliance with the law.
    
      Appeal from, Superior Court, Thurston County.
    
    
      Andrew F. Burleigh and J. E. Lilly, for appellant.
    
      H. L. Forrest and Byron Millett, for respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.

The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground of a failure on the part of appellant to comply with the statute m giving an appeal bond. A bond regular in form was filed within the time prescribed by law, but an exception was taken to the sufficiency of the sureties. Instead of the sureties appearing at the time and place specified, for examination as to their sufficiency, the appellant gave a new bond. We think this was a sufficient compliance with the statute, as it was the most that could have been required of appellant in case the sureties upon the former bond had been found insufficient. The filing of the new bond amounted to a confession that the former one was insufficient, and the new one was filed within the time provided. No exception was taken thereto.

The motion will be denied.

Hoyt, C. J., and Anders, J., concur.