The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-04-12
prom Fridays Daily ]

Ia this court yesterday number of
motions were submitted, and the follow
ing opinions delivered:
G. W. Caldwell ct al, plaintiffs in error,
VS.. W. H. Ballow, defendant in error.
This is a motion to dismiss writ of err
ror, on the ground that the bond is not
conditioned as required by the statute.
The condition Of the bond is that the
obligors "shall comply with the judgment,
order or decree of the supreme court upon
such writ, and pay all damages as may be
awarded against him."
The bond was evidently intended as a
supersedees bond, while the statute re-
quires to be CONDITIONED that such appel
liant or plaintiff in error shall prosecute
his appeal or writ of error with effect,
and, in case the judgment of the appel
late court shall be against him, that he
shall perform its judgment, sentence or
decree, and pay all such damages as said
court may award against him." One of
the conditions of the bond required by
the statute is entirely omitted.
The statute is plain, and compliance
with its terms easy, and we are not to
presume that it was the intention of the
dItions should be dispensed with.
If such bond does not literally comply
with the statute it must fully and clearly
embrace all the conditions presented by
it. (Reid VS. Fernandez, 80 Texas, 379)
This the bond before us Goes not, aud
the writ Of error must be dismissed.
STATION, Chief Justice.
Delivered April 5, 1888.
f. M. Davis, tax collector, vs. S. NJ. Bur-
nett, from Wichita comfy.
The appellee moves the dismissal of the
appeal III this case on the ground that it
DOES not afiirmatively appear that the ap-
peal bond, which is only for costs, is in a
sum equal to double the cost of the suit in
the district court and in this court az fixed
by the clerk.
by the clerk, ard the costs in the court
below are only $5275.
1t has been repeatedly held that such a
bond when approved by the clerk is suffi-
cient, although it does not appear other
wise than by the clerks approval of the
bond, that he fixed the probable amount
of double the costs of both courts at the
sum for which the bond is given.
And that there may be no misunder-
standing as to this in the future, we have
thought proper now to announce in writ.
ing the rule.
1t is further urged that certain of the
| assignments of error are too general, and
we are asked, on this account to strike
them from the record.
The first assignment OF error will illus
trate the several assignments ana the
matters to which they relate.
The first assignment is: "The court
erred in overriding the defendants plea
to the jurisdiction"
This is in Injunction suit. and the plea
questions the jurisdiction of the court. on
the ground that the sum involved does
not amount TO more than $500.
The assignment presents the question.
OF which revision is sought, as clearly as
this could well be done.
The other assignments are of the like
certainty when considered with reference
10 the matters to which they relate.
1t Is not expected that assignments Of
error will be argumenta.iye, ard it il
enough that they clearly present the very
point of which revision is sought.
The two motions will be overruled.
STATION, Chief Justice.
Delivered April 5, 1888.