Court Opinion

ID: 9833714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:57:50.72763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.137869
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by appellee, in wbicb it is urged, in substance, that tbis court erred in its former opinion in not bolding tbe bond filed in tbe court below on December 23, 1910, sufficient as an appeal cost bond; and in not bolding the bond filed in tbe court below on December 31, 1910, sufficient as a supersedeas appeal bond, and in not limiting appellant’s right to file a new bond in tbis court to a supersedeas appeal bond; and also in failing to adjudge all costs of appeal in the court of Civil Appeals for tbe Second Supreme Judicial District, as well as in this court, against appellant.
[2]' A sufficient answer we think to tbe two grounds first mentioned is that tbe motion acted on by us in our former opinion prayed that both bonds be declared invalid, and that motion was expressly joined in by tbe appellee. Besides this, tbe affidavits attached to said motion show conclusively tbe invalidity of tbe bond filed on December 31, 1910, as well as tbe invalidity of the one filed on December 23, 1910.
[3] While tbe affidavits attached to the motion show sufficient'evidence, if presented in a tribunal having power to reform and then enforce as reformed, to warrant such tribunal in holding said bonds valid as cost bonds only, as we understand tbe law, bow-e'ver, tbis court bas no such power, and, so far as this court is concerned, said bonds must be either valid as supersedeas appeal bonds, as they purport to be, or invalid for any purpose, so far as the sureties are concerned.
[4] As to the bond filed below on December 31, 1910, we call attention to tbe fact that tbe indorsement of tbe clerk of tbe trial court thereon expressly shows that, while said paper was filed by him, it was not approved by him as a bond in tbe case, hence, if said instrument were valid in its execution, it could not serve as a supersedeas appeal bond in this cause, never having been approved as a bond in the cause.
There is an element of justice in appel-lee’s contention that appellant should not at this late date be allowed to have tbe case passed on in tbis court on its merits by merely filing in tbis court an appeal cost bond and not a supersedeas appeal bond, after having delayed appellee in tbe issuance .of an execution on its judgment as a result of having filed tbe bonds held void, but as tbe time allowed by tbis court in its former opinion within which a bond could be filed by appellant and approved in tbis court bas elapsed, and no bond of any character bas been filed in tbis court by appellant, no injury has been done appellee or can now result to appellee because of the matter complained of.
[5] While no mention was made in our former opinion as to costs incident to tbe attempted appeal in tbis cause, appellant, having attempted to perfect the appeal, and thus causing all costs incident thereto to accrue, is personally liable therefor.
Tbe motion for rehearing will be in all things overruled. All costs incident to the attempted appeal in tbis cause incurred in tbe trial court, in the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District, and in this court, will be taxed against the appellant personally, and tbe cause will be finally dismissed from tbis court because an appeal bas not been properly perfected hereto ; and it is so ordered.