Case ID: wash_82/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cubiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 12071.
    Department One.
    December 15, 1914.]
    J. C. Michaels et al., Respondents, v. Joseph Levinson et al., Appellants.
    
    Appeal — Bond—Sufficiency. On appeal from a judgment for $724, with interest and costs, a bond on appeal conditioned also as a supersedeas bond, in the sum of $1,600, is insufficient to support the appeal, which must he dismissed; the statute requiring a bond in double the amount of the judgment, and $200 additional; which would amount to $1,648, without taking account of costs.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Humphries, J., entered February 10, 1914, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action on contract, tried to the court.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      Jay C. Allen and J. H. Allen, for appellants.
    
      Carl J. Smith and H. E. Foster, for respondents.
    
      
      Reported in 144 Pac. 903.
    
   Pee Cubiam.

Judgment was entered in the court below against the appellants for the sum of $724 with interest from January 20, 1914, and costs. A bond and supersedeas in the penal sum of $1,600 was filed by the appellants. Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal. It is not seriously contended that the appeal should not be dismissed under the authority of the following cases: Pierce v. Willeby, 20 Wash. 129, 54 Pac. 999; Douglas v. Badger State Mine, 41 Wash. 266, 83 Pac. 178, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 196; Washington Water Power Co. v. Abacus Ass’n, 49 Wash. 261, 94 Pac. 1072; Hassett v. Fraternal Brotherhood, 59 Wash. 161, 109 Pac. 305; Swift v. Saulsberry, 59 Wash. 163, 109 Pac. 305; Smith v. Porter, 66 Wash. 349, 119 Pac. 824.

But it is said that, under the authority of Kelley v. Sakai, 70 Wash. 699, 127 Pac. 107, where a judgment had been entered for $272 and a bond and supersedeas had been given in the sum of $700, and where we held,

“The motion to dismiss the appeal on account of the alleged insufficiency of the bond is denied; it appearing to the court that the bond is sufficient as an appeal bond, and as a supersedeas bond to stay the cost in the judgment appealed from. . . . Further than this, the bond is without legal effect”

that the appeal should not be dismissed.

Counsel has misconceived the facts in the Kelley case. Its holding is consistent with all of the cases that have been heretofore decided by this court upon this question. In that case, an independent action was begun to enjoin the collection of a judgment which had been entered in the sum of $271.80, and costs. After a hearing, a judgment of dismissal was entered. A judgment of dismissal carrying some minor sum as costs was the judgment appealed from. We held that the bond was sufficient. In this case, we have a judgment which, without taking account of costs, would require a supersedeas of $1,448 which, with $200, the statutory bond on appeal, would make a bond of $1,648 necessary.

Under the authority of the cases cited, the appeal is dismissed.