Case Name: Saterlee, Masters and Bebee v. Horace Stevens
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1842-12
Citations: 11 Ohio 420
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Saterlee, Masters and Bebee v. Horace Stevens
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 11
Pages: 358–360

Head Matter:
*Saterlee, Masters and Bebee v. Horace Stevens
A defective appeal bond, if it contain the substance of a bond, will sustain an appeal, so far as to justify an order to file a new bond.
This was a motion to quash an appeal, from the county of Trumbull.
Judgment had been rendered against the plaintiffs in the court of common pleas, and they gave notice of their intention to appeal t.o the Supreme Court. Within the thirty days, the following bond was filed in the clerk’s office :
“ Know all men by these presents, that I, Jacob H. Baldwin, as. principal, am held and firmly bound unto Horace Stevens, in the penal sum of $100. That the payment of which may be well and truly made, we jointly and severally bind ourselves. Signed and sealed May 2, a. d. 1842. The condition of the above obligation is such, that, whereas, Horace Stevens, at the April term, 1842, of the court of common pleas within and for the county of Trumbull,. in the State of Ohio, recovered a judgment against-— for th© sum of-dollars,-cents, for his costs of suit in an action of assumpsit, from which said judgment-the said-has appealed to the next Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, to be held within and for the said county of Trumbull. Now, therefore, if the said--shall pay the full amount of the condemnation money, in the Supreme Court, and costs in case a judgment-shall be entered therein in favor of the appellee, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue in law.
“ Jacob H. Baldwin.” [l. s.]
The bond was indorsed by the clerk as follows:
“ Saterlee, Masters and Bebee v. Horace Stevens.”
“Appeal Bond.”
“ Filed, May 2, 1842.”
*At the September term of the Supreme Court, a motion was made by the'defendant to quash the appeal. The plaintiffs at the same time moved for leave to perfect their appeal by filing a new bond.
Crowell & Abell, for plaintiffs.
Taylor & Harris, for defendant.

Opinion:
Birchard, J.
It was formerly held in this state that if a sufficient bond was not filed in due time, the appellate court had no jurisdiction of the case, and could neither permit a new bond to be filed nor make any other order in the case. Owing to carelessness of parties, and others in preparing and executing bonds, many appeals were consequently lost. To remedy the evil a statute waai provided, Swan's Stat. 686, authorizing the appellate court to order a new bond to be given, if, on exception taken, the bond should be found defective either in form or in any other respect. This boing a remedial statute, should be liberally construed. The condition of this bond is defective. It does not name the suit. From its face, independent of the indorsement, it could not be ascertained that it belonged to any particular suit in court; yet giving the law a liberal interpretation, it may with propriety be called a defective appeal bond, and justify an order to file a new one. Taking the fane of the instrument in connection with the indorsement, there is something to amend by. It is under seal, and purports to bind J. H. Baldwin to Horace Stevens, in the sum of one hundred dollars. This makes it a bond. As the law now stands' any paper coming within the legal definition of a bond, employing the term in its largest sense, however defective in other respects, will, if filed in due time for that purpose, sustain an appeal. An instrument without obligor or obligee, or in blank, as to the sum, would be insufficient. The motion to quash overruled. Leave given to file a new bond.