Court Opinion

ID: 9833713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:57:50.724726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.136900
License: Public Domain

GRAHAM, C. J.
This cause is before us on a motion to hold the supersedeas appeal bond filed in the trial court on December 23, 1910, void for irregularities connected with its execution; the motion having been filed by the sureties on said bond and joined in by appellee, and submitted to this court at the time of the submission of the main cause. The motion is supported by the affidavits of the several sureties, which in our judgment shows grounds sufficient to require that we hold the bond void, especially as there are no controverting affidavits on file among the papers in the cause now before us.
[1] The record shows that another supersedeas bond was filed in the trial court of December 31, 1910, but as that bond was filed after the lapse of the time required by law for the filing of such bonds, and the record fails to show any order of court au*683thorizing it to be filed and considered as an appeal bond in tbis cause, tbe Court of Civil Appeals of tbe Second District baying beld in tbe case of Dillard v. Wilson, 137 S. W. 152, that tbe filing of tbe bond on December 23, 1910, conferred jurisdiction on that court in tbis case, we bold that tbe bond filed on December 31, 1910, was and is invalid as an appeal or supersedeas appeal bond in tbis cause. Acts 1905, p. 224.
Because there bas been no valid and binding appeal bond or supersedeas bond filed in tbis cause within tbe time allowed by law, or under any order of court, tbis cause will be dismissed, unless as is provided in said act of 1905, above referred to, appellant file and cause to be approved in this court a new appeal or supersedeas appeal bond witbin 30 days from tbis date, and pay all costs which have accrued in tbe Court of Civil Appeals for tbe Second District, as well as tbe Seventh District, to date, of approval of such supersedeas appeal bond; and it is so ordered.