GAY
v.
PARPART
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 Supreme Court upheld the validity of an appeal bond that secured the appellant's obligation to prosecute an appeal to effect and to pay damages and costs if the decree were affirmed, finding the bond's language satisfied the statutory requirement under Revised Statutes section 1000. The Court held that a bond conditioning payment on affirmance of the underlying decree adequately protects the appellee's right to damages and costs, and therefore denied motions to dismiss the appeal and vacate the supersedeas.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
These motions are founded on an alleged defect in the form of the condition of the bond. By sect. 1000 Rev. Stat., the security to be taken on a writ of error or an appeal, where the writ or the appeal is a supersedeas and stays execution, must be “ that the plaintiff in error or the appellant shall prosecute his writ or appeal to effect, and, if he fails to make his plea good, shall answer all damages and costs.” The condition of the bond in this case is, that the appellants “ shall duly prosecute their said appeal with effect, and, moreover, pay the amount of costs and damages rendered and to be ren lered in case the decree shall be affirmed in said Supreme Courk”
. The objebt of the statutory requirement undoubtedly is to secure to the opposite party his damages ai d costs, in ease the judgment or decree shall not be reversed, ind that, we think, is the legal effect of this bond. If, on the final disposition of a writ of error or appeal, the juc gment or decree brought under review is not substantially reversed, it is affirmed and the writ of error or appeal has not been prosecuted with effect. In our opinion the language of the bond covers fully all the requirements of the statute. The motions to dismiss the appeal and vacate the supersedeas are, therefore, overruled.
The appellee has coupled with a motion to dismiss, a motion, under Rule 6, to affirm, because it is manifest that the appeal was taken for delay only. Clearly this is not a case for the application of that rule.
Motions denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (71 total)
-
Pro-Med Clinical Sys., L.L.C. v. Utopia Provider Sys., Inc., 18 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…tection for an original work of authorship extend to any ... procedure, process, system, [or] method of operation ... regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”); Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879) (holding that copyright protection did not extend to blank accounting forms or system of bookkeeping described in work on bookkeeping). [*1148] Pro-Med moved to dismiss Utopia’s state court action that sought damages for breach of the license…
-
Cable/Home Commc'n Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829 (11th Cir. 1990)…s. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a) (1982)25; Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int’l Inc., 725 F. 2d 521, 524 (9th Cir.1984); Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic Int’l, Inc., 685 F. 2d 870, 875 (3d Cir.1982). The seminal case of Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879), requires federal courts to distinguish between unprotected ideas and protected expression, a concept which has been incorporated in the Copyright Act.26 See Harper [*843] & Row, 471 U.S. at 556, 105 S.Ct. at 2228; Miller v. Universal City St…
-
John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966 (11th Cir. 1983)…firm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this issue. It is well-established that blank forms which do not convey information or contain original pictorial expression are not copyrightable. See, e.g., Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 107, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879) (holding that “blank account-books are not the subject of copyright”); M.M. Business Forms Corp. v. Uarco, Inc., 472 F. 2d 1137, 1139 (6th Cir.1973) (“Generally, forms, including blank forms, which are intended to be used for recording facts…
Previewing 3 of 71 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence