Case Name: Fanny F. Hewitt et al., Appellants, v. Charles T. Lansdale et al, Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1901-12-16
Citations: 26 Wash. 615
Docket Number: No. 3755
Parties: Fanny F. Hewitt et al., Appellants, v. Charles T. Lansdale et al, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
[No. 3755.
Decided December 16, 1901.]
Fanny F. Hewitt et al., Appellants, v. Charles T. Lansdale et al, Respondents.
APPEAL-STAY BOND-STOTEICIENCY.
An appeal bond which, is conditioned that appellants “shall pay all costs and damages that may be awarded against them on such appeal or dismissal thereof, not exceeding the sum of $200; and shall perform and satisfy any judgment which said court may make or order to be made or rendered by the superior court in case said judgment is affirmed,” is clearly conditioned both as an appeal and a stay bond, and is insufficient when the penalty is not in a sum double the amount of the judgment, and $200 additional.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County. — Hon. Henry S. Elliott, Judge.
Appeal dismissed.
J. W. Robinson (Phil Bhillman, of counsel), for appellants.
John R. Mitchell and Milo A. Root, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A motion to dismiss the appeal was taken with the record. The objection by respondents is that the appeal bond is defective. The judgment of the superior court was against the appellants, and for dismissal of the action, with costs taxed in the sum of $53. The appeal bond is in the sum of $200, and is conditioned that appellants "shall pay all costs and damages that may he awarded against them on such appeal or dismissal thereof, not exceeding the sum of $200." But the bond here goes further and contains the following conditions; "And shall perform and satisfy any judgment which said court may make or order to he made or rendered by the superior court in case said judgment is affirmed." Evidently there are con ditions for both, an appeal and stay bond, and under the uniform construction of such bonds by this court it is insufficient ,to maintain the appeal.
Dismissed.