Case Name: Hargis v. Pearce & Son
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1870-09-28
Citations: 7 Bush 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hargis v. Pearce & Son.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Case 38 —APPEAL-BOND
September 28.
Hargis v. Pearce & Son.
APPEAL FROM ROWAN CIRCUIT COURT.
1. Imperfect and defective appeal-bonds mat be perfected nunc pro tunc. — When anything in the form of a bond has been executed and returned, the court should permit the modification and perfection of it nunc pro tune.
2. Signatures alone to a blank paper do not constitute ant obligation for ant purpose or of ant kind. — In this case the appellant from the quarterly to the circuit court and a surety signed their names to a blank paper, with authority to the clerk to write a proper appeal-bond above their signatures, which he failed to do. The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the appeal, and refusing to permit the appellant either to fill up the paper as signed or to execute a new bond, is affirmed.
John Rodman,...... ... For Appellant,
CITED
1Bush, 223, Walters V. Patrick.
Civil Code, section 753.
E. C. Phister,..........For Appellees,
CITED
Civil Code, sections 847-852.
2 Duvall, 77, Adams v. Settles.
3 Bush, 94, Manier v. Lindsay.

Opinion:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellees having obtained a judgment in the Rowan Quarterly Court against the appellant, he appealed to the circuit court, and he and a surety signed their names to a blank paper, with authority to the clerk to write a proper appeal-bond above their signatures, which he failed to do. On the calling of the case in the circuit court, more than sixty days after the appeal, that court, on the motion of the appel lees, properly dismissed the appeal for want of a bond, and refused to permit the appellant either to fill up the blank paper as signed or to execute a new bond.
Had anything in the form of a bond been executed and, returned, it would have been the duty of the court to permit: the modification and perfection of it nuno pro time; but the!; signatures alone did not constitute any obligation for anyj purpose or of any kind, any more than if there had been no)signatures. The difference between an imperfect or defective [ bond and no bond at all is fatal to the appellant, and left the? circuit court no discretion. ¡j
Wherefore the judgment is affirmed. ;