Case Name: Patience Gay v. Harris Hurts et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1885-01-28
Citations: 56 Mich. 153
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patience Gay v. Harris Hurts et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
Patience Gay v. Harris Hurts et al.
[See 55 Mich. 327.]
Costs — Judgment against surety.
1. Judgment for costs was authorized by How. Stat. § 7663 to be entered against a surety, if entered immediately. Held, in good time, where judgment against the sureties was asked for at the outset, but the clerk in entering a final judgment for the costs of all the courts did not notice that there were sureties and motion was therefore made in the Supreme Court for judgment against them.
2. Judgment against sureties for costs must be limited tc the penalty of their bond.
Motion for judgment against sureties for costs.
Submitted January 20.
Granted January 28.
Jason P. Nichols for the motion.
II. J. Patterson against.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff brought suit in justice's court which after judgment there was appealed to the circuit court. In that court by special order she was required to file security for costs, and did so in the form of a common-law bond. Prom the circuit court the case was brought to this Court, and defendants obtained final judgment here for costs of all the courts. In entering up judgment no notice was taken by the clerk of the fact that there were sureties; but the defend ants afterwards, upon notice served upon the sureties, moved for judgment in this Court against them under How. Stat. § 7GG3.
It is objected that the statute only authorizes a judgment to be "immediately" entered against the sureties ; and this not having been done when the clerk made his first entry it is said it cannot be done at all. But we think it is in time if done when the successful party moves for judgment; and when in this case he first moved in the case, he asked that the judgment be against the sureties.
It is also said that the decision in the case of Ortmann v. Merchants' Bank 42 Mich. 464, is against this application. But-in-that case the costs awarded were only the costs of the Supreme Court; and those o£ the circuit court, which the security was primarily given for, were left to abide the result of a new trial.
The judgment may be entered, but as the penalty of the bond was $200 only, the judgment against the sureties, if the costs, as taxed exceed that sum, must be limited to it.