Court Opinion

ID: 9827341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:25:49.399943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:29.484083
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant insists that the issue relative to the fairness of the contract made with the appellee should have been -submitted to the jury. The only request for the submission of that issue was so written that in stating the contract some important details were omitted. The court properly refused to submit that issue in the form requested, even if' it be conceded that the fairness of the contract was raised by the evidence.
It is also contended that the judgment rendered in this court should not be against the sureties on appellant’s supersedeas bond. Article 2101 of the Revised Civil Statutes, relating to supersedeas bonds on appeals' from district and county .courts, provides that the conditions of the bond shall be:
*240■ “That such appellant or plaintiff in error shall prosecute his appeal or writ of error with effect; and in case the judgment of the Supreme Court or the Court of Civil Appeals shall he against him, he shall perform its judgment, sentence or decree, and pay all such damages as said court may award against him.”
The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure the payment of the judgment from which the appeal is taken, and it logically follows that, if any part of that judgment is sustained by the appellate court, the sureties become liable for its satisfaction. Where a cost bond only is the basis of the appeal the conditions of the bond are fulfilled when the judgment is reversed, or so reformed as to impose the costs on the party resisting the appeal. Blair v. Sanborn, 82 Tex. C86, 18 S. W. 159:
The motions for rehearing are overruled.