Case Name: Canal Lumber Company, Respondent, v. Kong Yick Investment Company, Appellant, Washington Interior Finish Company, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1912-02-03
Citations: 67 Wash. 126
Docket Number: No. 10163
Parties: Canal Lumber Company, Respondent, v. Kong Yick Investment Company, Appellant, Washington Interior Finish Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 126–128

Head Matter:
[No. 10163.
Department Two.
February 3, 1912.]
Canal Lumber Company, Respondent, v. Kong Yick Investment Company, Appellant, Washington Interior Finish Company, Respondent.
Appeal — Bonds—Obligors. An appeal will be dismissed where the bond on appeal was given by one as principal who was not a party to the action, and conditioned that he would pay any judgment that might be rendered against him, and against whom no judgment could be rendered (Fullerton, J., dissenting).
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered May 20, 1911, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff.
Appeal dismissed.
Tucker # Hyland, for appellant,
in opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, cited: Bloomingdale v. Weil, 29 Wash. 611, 70 Pac. 94; Dossett v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., 31 Wash. 489, 72 Pac. 116; Cook v. Tibbals, 12 Wash. 209, 40 Pac. 935; Dahl v. Tibbals, 6 Wash. 259, 31 Pac. 868; Hill Estate Co. v. Whittelsey, 21 Wash. 142, 57 Pac. 345; Spokane & Idaho Lumber Co. v. Loy, 21 Wash. 501, 58 Pac. 672, 60 Pac. 1119; Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Seattle, Renton & Southern R. Co., 50 Wash. 391, 97 Pac. 453; Sipes v. Puget Sound Elec. R. Co., 50 Wash. 585, 97 Pac. 723; Wilson v. Puget Sound Elec. R. Co., 50 Wash. 596, 97 Pac. 727; Westland Pub. Co. v. Royal, 36 Wash. 399, 78 Pac. 1096; Drouilhat v. Rottner, 13 Ore. 493, 11 Pac. 221; Johnson v. Johnson, 31 Ohio St. 131.
Walter L. Johnstone, for respondent.
Reported in 120 Pac. 882.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Respondent moves the dismissal of the appeal herein because no bond has been filed. A bond was filed by one Hans Pederson, as principal,- with two sureties. It is conditioned that Hans Pederson will pay any judgment that may be rendered against him upon the appeal or the dismissal thereof. Pederson was not a party to the action, and no judgment could be rendered against him. . No judgment could be rendered against the sureties upon an affirmance of the appeal, because they had not so agreed. The case is governed by the rule in Bruhn v. Steffins, 66 Wash. 144, 119 Pac. 29, and must be dismissed. It is so ordered.