Case Name: HOGLE v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1910-04-01
Citations: 160 Mich. 573
Docket Number: Calendar No. 23,638
Parties: HOGLE v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Judges: Hooker, Moore, McAlvay, and Stone, JJ., concurred with Ostrander, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 160
Pages: 573–575

Head Matter:
HOGLE v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Appeal and Error — Stay op Proceedings — Bond—Statutes.
A bond to stay proceedings at law pending the settlement of case made and review in the Supreme Court must be for double the amount of the judgment (3 Comp. Laws, § 10,355), and no discretion is vested in the circuit court to permit the filing of a bond with a smaller penalty because of the prior filing of bonds in attachment and garnishment proceedings which would amply secure the plaintiff.
Mandamus by George Hogle to compel Alfred J. Murphy, circuit judge of Wayne' county, to set aside an order staying proceedings in an action at law.
Submitted November 16, 1909.
(Calendar No. 23,638.)
Writ granted April 1, 1910.
E. E. Hymers (George A. Safford, of counsel), for relator.
H. E. Spalding, for respondent.

Opinion:
Ostrander, J.
While 3 Comp. Laws, § 10355, provides for a bond to stay proceedings, in such sum as the circuit judge before whom the cause was tried shall designate, it also provides that the bond shall be condi tioned to pay the judgment. Section 10358, 3 Comp. Laws, further provides that no other or further bond shall be required to stay and supersede execution upon any writ of error sued out in behalf of the party filing the bond. Comparing these provisions with 3 Comp. Laws, § 10485, 10486, it will be discovered that the bonds may perform the same office, are required to have the same conditions, and in both cases the sufficiency of the sureties "and the sum for which said bond shall be given" are to be determined by the circuit judge. But the purpose of the bond is to secure payment of the judgment. The penalty fixed in 3 Comp. Laws, § 10486, is "notless than double the amount of the judgment upon which the writ of error is brought."
Reading these statutes together, it must be held that the penalty, in either case, may not be less than double the amount of the judgment, and that the circuit judge has no discretion to accept and approve a bond with a smaller penalty.
The writ is granted.
Hooker, Moore, McAlvay, and Stone, JJ., concurred with Ostrander, J.