Court Opinion

ID: 9699019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:07:09.611138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:45.659002
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
Some additional facts should be set out. The bond in this case was executed by the principal and by the Insurance Company of North America, as surety, and was dated three days prior to the expiration of the appeal time. The bond carried on the lower lefthand corner of its face, the following words: “Approved by State Auditor this_day of_, 1969. _ State Auditor.”
On the final day for appeal, plaintiff’s attorney called the Department of Motor Vehicles, identified himself, and asked if the bond in this case had been received, accepted, and filed. After checking the file, the employee advised the plaintiff’s attorney that the bond had been filed and marked as filed on that day.
It should also be noted that it is undisputed that Insurance Company of North America was “sufficient surety to be approved by the Auditor of Public Accounts.”
The trial court granted the oral motion of the plaintiff to amend the cost bond on December 1st. The only thing about the bond which needed amendment was the endorsement of the approval of the Auditor of Public Accounts.
*722The majority opinion holds that the language of the statute is so clear that, in the face of these facts, this court is required to hold that the approval of the Auditor of Public Accounts must be obtained by the plaintiff, and within the 20-day period for appeal, and that such approval within that time is a jurisdictional requirement precedent to initiation of the appellate process and cannot be amended thereafter.
That conclusion is not required by the statute. It continues a timeworn tendency of appellate courts to rely upon hypertechnical interpretation of appeal statutes to dispose of cases upon procedural grounds.' This may be practical, but it is not equitable. Roscoe Pound commented acidly on this tendency of appellate courts more than once.
There is ample authority in this state to reach a different result. Section 25-852, R. R. S. 1943, provides, among other things, that: “* * * Whenever any proceeding taken by a party fails to conform, in any respect, to the provisions of this code, the court may permit the same to be made conformable thereto by amendment.” That section has been applied to an appeal bond. Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha, 173 Neb. 229, 113 N. W. 2d 486. This court specifically said in that case: “The term' ‘proceeding’ as used in the statute includes filing of appeal bond, and the right to amend such bond is within the purview of the statute. See In re Estate of Kothe, 131 Neb. 780, 270 N. W. 117. In the cited case it was said: ‘This court has frequently held that where a bond is given, even if defective, still the court has obtained jurisdiction, and that the proper procedure is for the adverse party to move to compel the appellant to give a proper bond in an amount and condition as required by law; * * ” See, also, In re Estate of Hoagland, 128 Neb. 219, 258 N. W. 538.
In State ex rel. Miller v. Cavett, 163 Neb. 584, 80 N. W. 2d 692, this court said with respect to an appeal bond which did not comply with the requirements of *723the statute: “While the bond is irregular in form, it is sufficient to lodge jurisdiction of the case in district court. The irregularities of the bond are such that the trial court could properly require the filing of an amended bond to eliminate the irregularities found in' the original. It is not an appeal bond which is so fallacious as to be no bond at all.”
In the case relied on heavily in the majority opinion, Reiber v. Harris, 179 Neb. 582, 139 N. W. 2d 353, this court specifically said: “A bond which has been filed and approved within the time required by statute is subject to amendment if defective or invalid. * * * In these cases the record does not show that bonds were submitted to the county clerk for approval within the statutory time.”
. In Jacobitz v. Bussinger, 179 Neb. 524, 138 N. W. 2d 839, this court said as to an appeal bond: “Ordinarily an appellant is not a competent'surety for himself,'but a bond signed by a principal, who also signs as the only surety, while it may be insufficient or defective or invalid as a bond, is not void for the purpose of determining whether jurisdiction on appeal is acquired.”
In State v. Kidder, 169 Neb. 181, 98 N. W. 2d 800, this court said: “We conclude that a defective appeal bond which has been approved by the court rendering the judgment confers jurisdiction on the appellate court to have the defect corrected, and the appellate court is required to permit amendments of the bond or order the filing of a new bond in the furtherance of justice. Where a failure to so do results in prejudice to the complaining party it constitutes prejudicial error. The discretion granted a court in permitting or denying amendments is a legal discretion which is subject to review to determine if its exercise resulted in prejudice to a litigant.”
In the case at bar, the plaintiff delivered an appeal bond to the Director of Motor Vehicles in time and in complete and proper form and “with sufficient surety to be approved by the Auditor of Public Accounts.” The *724trial court in its discretion granted a motion to amend the appeal bond by showing the missing approval and overruled a demurrer based on the procedural jurisdictional grounds previously discussed. That discretion was properly exercised and should have been affirmed.
Smith, J., joins in this dissent.