Jackson v. Relf
Jackson v. Relf
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
Appellees, who were complainants below, moved to vacate the supersedeas in this cause. The supersedeas 'bond fails to identify with certainty the decree appealed from. It not only does not identify the decree appealed from, but it also fails to identify with certainty the cause in which the decree was rendered. The decree, as set forth in the transcript before us, shows both by the title of the case, as stated, and by the context of the decree, that John S. Relf is a complainant as administrator of the estate of Sam’l IT. Williams, yet in the bond he is not so represented to the exclusion of t]ie fact that the language used in it may be merely descriptio personae. The bond does not moreover
An order will be entered vacating the supersedeas but without prejudice to appellant filing a new bond and obtaining a supersedeas according to the law and practice governing in such cases.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Charles E. Jackson v. Christine A. Relfs.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- L Where a supersedeas bond in a chancery appeal does not identify with certainty the decree appealed from, the supersedeas will be vacated by this court, 2. A supersedeas bond which does not state the court, nor correctly name the county in which the cause is pending, uor designate the decree appealed from, nor name with certainty the cause in which such decree was rendered, is not a proper supersedeas bond. 3. Supersedeas vacated without prejudice to right of appellant to file a new bond and obtain a supersedeas according to the law and practice governing in such cases.