Case ID: mich_5/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William E. Warner, Admr. &c. vs. Samuel Whittaker and Another.
    It is not necessary, on appeal in Chancery, that any written claim of appeal should be filed.
    It is not necessary that a bond given on appeal in Chancery should be executed by all the appellants. It is sufficient if it appear to be executed on behalf of all.
    Motions to dismiss must be made at the earliest opportunity.
    
      Heard and Decided May 11th.
    
    Appeal in Chancery.
    
      G. O'Flynn moved to dismiss the appeal in this cause,—
    1. Because the claim of appeal was not signed by the appellants.
    [The Chief Justice: In the case of Mnerson vs. At-water and others, it was intimated, and we think correctly, that no written claim of appeal was necessary.]
    2. The appeal-bond is signed by but one of the appellants.
    [The Chief Justice: Is it not executed on behalf of both?]
    
      O'Flynn: It purports to be; but the other appellant is in no manner made a party to, or bound by it. It should be executed by both. —16 Pick. 208; 2 Mich. 237.
    
      
      
        Ante, p. 35.
    
   By the Court:

We think it sufficient that the bond is executed on behalf of both appellants.

For another reason we should not be inclined to entertain this motion. The transcript on appeal was filed in August last, and two terms of Court have since elapsed without this motion being made. In such cases, the party must make his application at the earliest opportunity.

Motion denied.