Hudson v. Gray
Mississippi Supreme Court
Motion in Supreme Court. 'L'he appellee moved to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that the paper in the record purporting to be an appeal-bond is not signed by the number of sureties required by the statute. I submit that R. S. Hudson, being an appellant, cannot become a surety for the other appellants. The requirements of the statute must be mot in all appeals to this court. It is by virtue of the statute that the right of appeal exists.
Read the full summary
Motion in Supreme Court. 'L'he appellee moved to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that the paper in the record purporting to be an appeal-bond is not signed by the number of sureties required by the statute. I submit that R. S. Hudson, being an appellant, cannot become a surety for the other appellants. The requirements of the statute must be mot in all appeals to this court. It is by virtue of the statute that the right of appeal exists. Bridges v. Supervisors, 57 Miss. 254. Hudson claims the right, under sect. 2334, Code of 1880, to appeal without giving bond.
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, C. J.
The executor and a portion of the heirs of an estate prayed an appeal from a decree directing a partition of the lands of the decedent. A bond was executed by two of the appellants only. This was sufficient; since, though all appellants must join in an appeal, one or more may execute the bond. The bond, however, was defective in having one proper surety only, the other person signing as surety being the executor, who, as before stated, was one of the appellants. If the executor in this case had appealed alone, no bond would have been required of him, under sect. 2334 of the Code of 1880,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- City of Belzoni v. JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court · 2013
- Avent v. MarketteMississippi Supreme Court · 1915
- City of Belzoni Mississippi v. Shirley JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court · 2012
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. MajureMississippi Supreme Court · 1936