Ennor v. Galena & Southern Wisconsin Railroad, 104 Ill. 103 (1882)

Sept. 1882 · Illinois Supreme Court

104 Ill. 103

William Ennor v. Galena and Southern Wisconsin Railroad Company, use, etc.

At Ottawa, September Term, 1882.

Appeal boot}—liability thereon—sufficiency as to amownt. A judgment 'was rendered in the trial court for $5i568. On an appeal to the Appellate 'Court an appeal bond was given in the sum of $7000. The judgment was affirmed on that appeal, and on a further appeal to the Supreme Court an appeal boAd in the sum of only $500 was given. On the question whether the latter bond was for a sufficient amount, it was considered that in case of ' an affirmance by this court of the judgment of the Appellate Court, the • appeal bond givbn on the appeal fi;om the trial court would stand as security for the judgment rendered in that court, and as the appeal bond given on the appeal to the Supreme Court was sufficient in amount to cover the costs in this court, that-was all that was required.

•Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District; —heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Jo Daviess county.

The judgment in this case, as rendered in the circuit court, was for the sum of $5668, .which, with interest and costs, amounted to nearly $7000. On granting the appeal from the circuit court to the Appellate Court the appeal bond was required to be given in the penalty of this latter sum, and the bond was so executed. The judgment rendered in the circuit court, on the appeal to the Appellate Court, was affirmed. Then, upon the appeal from the Appellate Court to this court, the appeal bond was required to be given in the penal sum of only $500. The appellee now moves the court to dismiss the appeal,, on the ground of the alleged insufficiency of the appeal bond in respect to the amount of the penalty, it being contended the bond should have been given in a penal sum large enough to -secure to him the amount of his claim—some $7000.

Sheldon, J.:

This motion seems to be made on a misapprehension as to the effect of the appeal bond given on the appeal from the circuit court to the Appellate Court, standing as a security for the amount of the judgment appealed from. The adequacy of that bond, as respects the amount of the penalty in which it is given, does not seem to be called in question, or its sufficiency in any other respect. The bond given on the appeal to this court is in a sum sufficient to cover the costs in this court, and in case of an affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Court, the bond given in the circuit court will stand as security for the payment of the judgment. So the appellee has ample security for his judgment, and the costs, in the event of his having to resort to such security, and that is all he can require. A similar question was before us in McCall v. Moss, 100 Ill. 461. The motion will he denied.

Motion denied.