Case Name: Chambers v. Miller and Wife
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1851
Citations: 7 Tex. 75
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chambers v. Miller and Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 38–38

Head Matter:
Chambers v. Miller and Wife.
An appeal bond conditioned that “if said appellant should sustain his appeal and prosecute it with effect, then this obligation shall be void, and otherwise it shall remain in fall iorce and effect,” is not in conformity with the statute.
Where the bond given on appeal is not drawn in conformity with tho statute, and the appellant fails to file tho transcript, tho appelleo cannot obtain an affirmance of the judgment without reference to the merits. (Note 14.)
Where an appeal bond is not drawn in conformity with the statute, the appeal does not supersede the isspo of execution on tho judgment.
Note 14. — Janes v. Langham, 29 T., 413; Thompson v. Pine, 41T., 171.
Appeal from Bastrop. The appellant having failed to file the transcript within the time prescribed by law, the appellees moved the court to affirm the judgment without reference to tlie merits. The appeal bond was conditioned that “if said appellant should sustain his appeal and prosecute it with effect, then this obligation shall be void, and otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect.”
Poage and Duval, for appellees.

Opinion:
Lipscomb, J.
In this case the transcript of the record not having been filed by the appellant, the appellees have moved for an affirmance of the judgment of the court below, under the provisions of art. 293S, Hart. Dig. On an inspection of the certified copy of the appeal bond, it is found not to be in conformity with the xirovisions of the statute in such cases made and provided, neither as a bond to supersede an execution nor for the costs and damages. (See arts. 791, 793, Hart. Dig.)
The bond certified by the cleric is conditioned, "if said appellant should sustain his appeal and prosecute it with effect, then this obligation shall be void, and otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect."
As a statutory bond, it may be considered a nullity in disposing of the motion before us. (1 Tex. R., 101.) It could not operate as a supersedeas to the issuance of an execution; nor could it in any way interpose an impediment to the appellees in enforcing satisfaction of their judgment. Tlie motion must therefore be refused.
Motion overruled.