Case ID: ill_40/html/0050-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dietrich v. Rumsey.
    (April Term, 1867.)
    1. Appeal bond—its requisites. Where an appeal bond recites a judgment rendered on the 14th day of the month, and the record, shows the judgment to have been rendered on the 13th day of the same month, the bond will be held insufficient.
    2. Where the judgment appealed from was in replevin, and a return of the property was awarded, the appeal bond should, recite the character of the judgment in that regard.
    This was an action of replevin instituted by Dietrich against Rumsey. A trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant, upon which a judgment was entered against the plaintiff, on the 13th day of September, 1866, for costs, and awarding a return of the property..- The- plaintiff appealed to this court, the appeal bond reciting a judgment as being rendered on the 14th of September, and describing the judgment as being simply for costs.
    Mr: Thomas J. Turner,
    for the appellee, moved the court to dismiss the appeal, because of the insufficiency of the appeal bond.
   Per Curiam:

The record shows a judgment rendered on the 13th day of the month, while the condition of the appeal bond recites a judgment’ rendered on the 14th day of the same month. This misdescription of the judgment appealed from is fatal. A rule nisi will be entered, requiring the appellant to file a sufficient appeal bond, or, in default thereof, the appeal will be dismissed.

The bond does not recite that there was a judgment of retorno in the court below; it had better be amended also in that regard.

Mule nisi.