Niagara v. Smith

• Decision Date: 30 April 1866
• Citation: 42 Ill. 106,1866 WL 4650
• Parties: PROPELLER NIAGARAv.JOHN MARTIN.PROPELLER NIAGARAv.JOHN SMITH.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

42 Ill. 106

1866 WL 4650 (Ill.)

PROPELLER NIAGARA

v.JOHN MARTIN.PROPELLER NIAGARA

v.JOHN SMITH.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1866.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.

These were proceedings commenced before a justice of the peace in Cook county, by John Martin and John Smith, respectively, against the Propeller ““Niagara,” to recover for services rendered upon the boat. The causes were removed into the Circuit Court by appeal. The proceedings were commenced by attachment, and John V. Dellor and Samuel H. Dellor entered their appearance as owners of the propeller. The action of the court being adverse to the defendants, they prayed an appeal to this court. A motion is made here to dismiss the appeals for want of sufficient bonds. The grounds of objection to the bonds are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Mr. O. B. SANSUM, for the appellant.

Messrs. SCATES, BATES & TOWSLEE, for the appellees.

PER CURIAM:

In this case a motion has been made by the appellee to dismiss the appeal for want of a sufficient appeal bond. The appeal was prayed by the defendants, John V. Dellor and Samuel H. Dellor, against whom, as owners of the propellor Niagara, a judgment for costs was rendered. The appeal was granted on condition that the defendants file a bond. The defendants, John V. and Samuel H. Dellor, have not joined in the bond. It is executed only by Spencer as consignee of the propellor with Robt. Rae as security. The terms of the order granting the appeal require that the defendants praying it, to wit, the Dellors, shall execute the bond. No cross motion having been made for leave to amend the bond, the appeal must be dismissed, but the appellants will have leave to withdraw the record, if they desire, for the purpose of applying for a supersedeas on suing out a writ of error. We express no opinion on other points in the case. The appeal is dismissed simply because it was not perfected in conformity with the terms of the order granting it.

This same opinion is to apply to the case of propellor Niagara v. John Smith.

Appeal dismissed.