Case Name: The Commercial Union Assurance Company v. O. F. & E. R. Norwood
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1894-07
Citations: 54 Kan. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commercial Union Assurance Company v. O. F. & E. R. Norwood.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 500–502

Head Matter:
The Commercial Union Assurance Company v. O. F. & E. R. Norwood.
Action eob Monet Onlt — Judgment — Enforcement — Stay Bond. The oases of Water Power Co. v. Brown, 23 Kas. 696, Bentley v. Brown, 37 id. 17, and Railway Co. v. Kirlcpatrich, 52 id. 201, followed. The ease of Grant v. Dabney, 19 Kas. 391, distinguished.
Error from Pawnee District Court.
The petition in this case was filed February 23, 1894. Therein the plaintiff in error, among other things, says:
“On November 15, 1893, in an action then pending in the district court of Pawnee county, Kansas, in which the defendants in error were plaintiffs and the plaintiff in error was the defendant, the said district court rendered a final order and judgment in favor of said plaintiffs below and against this plaintiff in error, directing the payment of a certain judgment theretofore rendered in said court in favor of said O. F. & E. R. Norwood and against this plaintiff in error, notwithstanding an appeal had been regularly taken from said judgment, and a supersedeas bond duly filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Pawnee county, Kansas, and approved by said clerk. This plaintiff in error alleges that the district court of Pawnee county erred in rendering said final order and judgment, in the following particulars: (1) That said order and judgment were not sustained by the evidence; (2) that said order and judgment were contrary to law; (3) errors of law that occurred at the hearing of said motion, and to which this plaintiff in error at the time duly excepted.”

Opinion:
On February 28, 1894, there was filed herein, on behalf of plaintiff in error, a motion for the court to fix the amount of the supersedeas bond to stay execution in the above-entitled ease, for the reason that the court below, before which this cause was heard, has refused so to do.
On Saturday, the 7th day of July, 1894, Elrick C. Cole, and Sylvester G. Williams, appearing for plaintiff in error, and W. II. Vernon, C. N. Sierry, and Robert Dunlap, for defendants in error, before the supreme court of the state of Kansas, in session at the supreme court room, in the city of Topeka, the following proceeding was had, and remains of record at page 309 of journal "V" of said court:
" The Commercial Union Assurance Company, v. Plaintiff in Error, O. F. & E. R. Norwood, Defendants in Error.
" Now comes on for decision the motion of plaintiff in error to stay the enforcement of the execution issued out of the court below in this cause, and to fix the amount of the bond to be given by the plaintiff in error for such stay ; and thereupon it is ordered, that the said motion be overruled, on the authority of § 555 of the civil code. (Water Power Co. v. Brown, 23 Kas. 696; Bentley v. Brown, 37 id. 17; Railway Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 52 id. 201.) In the case of Grant v. Dabney, 19 Kas. 391, cited in support of said motion, the contract was not for the payment of money at all."