Opinion ID: 2125422
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: motion to require undertaking

Text: Section 28-27-09.1, NDCC, was enacted in 1971. It provides: When the state, or any state officer, or state board, in a purely official capacity, or any public corporation, or any municipal corporation within the state, shall take an appeal, service of the notice of appeal shall perfect the appeal and stay the execution or performance of the judgment or order appealed from and no undertaking need be given, but the supreme court on motion may require sureties to be given in such form and manner as it shall prescribe as a condition of the further prosecution of the appeal. [Emphasis supplied.] Rule 62, N.D.R.Civ.P., was adopted by this court in 1957, and provided in part: (e) Stay in Favor of the State or Agency Thereof. When ... the judgment is stayed, no bond, obligation, or other security shall be required from the appellant. Section 28-2719 of the North Dakota Revised Code of 1943 was superseded by Rule 62(e). The superseded statute previously provided that: When the state ... shall take an appeal, service of the notice of appeal shall perfect the appeal and stay the execution or performance of the judgment or order appealed from and no undertaking need be given, but the supreme court on motion may require sureties to be given in such form and manner as it shall prescribe as a condition of the further prosecution of the appeal. Section 28-2709, NDRC, 1943, was not superseded by the Rules of Civil Procedure. In 1971 it provided: To render an appeal effectual for any purpose, an undertaking must be executed on the part of the appellant by at least two sureties to the effect that the appellant will pay all costs and damages which may be awarded against him on the appeal not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars. Section 28-2711, NDRC, 1943, was, however, superseded by Rule 62(d). Section 28-2711, before it was superseded, provided: If the appeal is from a judgment directing the payment of money, it shall not stay the execution of the judgment unless an undertaking is executed on the part of the appellant by at least two sureties to the effect that if the judgment appealed from, or any part thereof, is affirmed the appellant will pay the amount directed to be paid by the judgment, or the part of such amount as to which the judgment shall be affirmed, if it is affirmed only in part, and all damages, which shall be awarded against the appellant on appeal. Rule 62(d) provided: (d) Stay Upon Appeal. When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay subject to the exceptions contained in subdivision (a) of this rule. The bond may be given at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal. The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by the court. From 1957 to 1971 there was, accordingly, no statute or rule automatically staying a judgment when the state or its agencies and subdivisions took an appeal. [2] Presuming that § 28-27-09.1 is valid and applicable as the parties presumed, we decline to require the City to provide sureties in this case. In one of the earliest cases determined by this court applying territorial law, it was said: But it is the policy of this jurisdiction that no security need be given to obtain a stay of execution pending an appeal, where the appellant, as in this case, is a municipal corporation. The reason is obvious. No security on appeal could make the judgment any more secure. Territory v. Woodbury, 1 N.D. 85, 44 N.W. 1077, 1078 (1890). The Bank has not explained to us how sureties would be beneficial to the Bank in collecting any damage claim that it might have against the City. We accordingly apply the exemption provided by § 28-27-09.1 as recognized in Rule 7, N.D.R.App.P., and Rule 62(e), N.D.R.Civ.P., and decline to require sureties.