W. B. HAYS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MARY A. TODD, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court granted a motion to vacate a supersedeas order due to doubts about the sufficiency of the sureties on the bond. The court indicated that the plaintiff in error should initiate the process for filing a new bond and seeking a supersedeas.
Yes, the supersedeas order should be vacated due to doubts about the sureties' sufficiency. The proper practice is for the party seeking the supersedeas to actively present a new bond and apply for a supersedeas order.
“The affidavits presented in support of this motion raise serious doubts in our minds as to the sufficiency of the sureties, and though these doubts are not such as might not have been overcome by an effort to meet the representations of the affidavits had such an effort been made, still, under the circumstances, we think the motion should be granted.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for granting the motion to vacate the supersedeas.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant in error moved to vacate a supersedeas order granted to the plaintiff in error. The motion was based on doubts regarding the sufficiency…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Raney, C. J,:
The affidavits presented in support of this motion raise serious doubts in our minds as to the sufficiency of the sureties, and though these doubts are not such as might not have been overcome by an effort to meet the representations of the affidavits had such an effort been made, still, under the circumstances, we think the motion should be granted.
Counsel for Plaintiff in error have signified a desire that we give them time to file an additional supersedeas bond. Upon this point our conclusion is that the proper practice is for them to become actors in presenting a new bond and applying for a supersedeas order, and that the present movants are entitled to the order setting aside the supersedeas heretofore granted. McMichael vs. Eckman & Vetsburg et als., decided the present term.
Counsel for defendant in error has asked that the supersedeas order be vacated on the ground also that a Justice of this Court cannot approve a supersedeas bond on a writ of error. The notice to the plaintiff in error did not specify this as a ground of the motion and it is not necessary, even if it is proper, to decide the point. The practice as to approval of such bonds has long been to the contrary of this position, but we do not care to dispose of it finally now.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Tampa St. Ry. & Power Co. v. The Tampa Suburban R.R. Co., 30 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1892)
-
Hardie v. Inter-City Co., 112 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1933)…Davis, C. J. In this case the motion to vacate the clerk’s approval of the supersedeas bond herein, and to adjudge that the supersedeas never did become effectual nor operative, should be granted. Hays v. Todd, 26 Fla. 214, 7 Sou. Rep. 851. Such is the appropriate disposition of this matter [*843] because the statute requires a bond with “two” good and sufficient sureties to be given and failure to comply with the statutes as to the giving of a bond with “two” suretie…