SEYMOUR
v.
FREER
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.
In this appeal, the Supreme Court determined that a bond filed in a lower court before the case was brought to the Supreme Court satisfied the procedural requirements for appeal, regardless of whether it was technically filed in time to make the appeal operate as a supersedeas. The Court held that while security for prosecution should ordinarily be taken when a citation is signed, failure to comply with this requirement would not result in dismissal of an appeal if the bond was subsequently filed within a reasonable time or if the Court could grant relief through a motion. The Court's decision established that strict adherence to procedural timing rules regarding appeal bonds would not result in dismissal when the essential requirements of appeal—allowance, notice to appellees, and bringing up the record—were satisfied.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
We think that for the purposes of appeal this decree must be regarded as having been passed on the 20th, and that the bond was filed in time.
Hut if this were otherwise, and through' mistake or accident no bond, or a defective bond, had been filed, this eourtwould not .dismiss the ap.pea.1, except on failure to comply with an order to give the proper security within such reasonable time as it might prescribe.* What is essential to an appeal is allowance, citation to the appellees, or equivalent notice or-waiver, and the bringing up of the record at the next term of this court. Security for prosecution should be taken by the judge on signing the. citation; but if this duty be omitted or defectively performed, a remedy can be applied here on motion.
In the present case a bond, admitted, to be sufficient for costs of prosecution, whether given in time'to'make appeal operate as a supersedeas or not, -was filed in the court below before removal to this court.
The motion to dismiss the appeal must therefore be
Denied.
*
Brobst v. Brobst, 2 Wallace, 96.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richards v. United States, 192 F.2d 602 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
-
O'Reilly v. Edrington, 96 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1877)
-
In re Hurley Mercantile Co. v. Atascosa Cnty. State Bank of Jourdanton, 56 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1932)…ount the time for appeal, but intended that the time should run only from the perfecting of the judgment or order as final by its filing with the clerk. Such was the ruling made touching appeals to the Supreme Court in Seymour v. Freer, 5 Wall. 822, 18 L. Ed. 564; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wall. 153, 18 L. Ed. 762; Polleys v. Black River Co., 113 U. S. 81, 5 S. Ct. 369, 28 L. Ed. 938. In a statute relating to judgments reviewable in the Supreme Court, the term “rendered” was held to refer to such judgments…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence