Rudolph v. Cassidy, 5-883
| Decision Date | 06 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-883,5-883 |
| Citation | 286 S.W.2d 489,225 Ark. 951 |
| Parties | Marjory Holt RUDOLPH, Appellant, v. Florence D. CASSIDY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Wade & McAllister, Fayetteville, for appellant.
Dickson & Putman and Rex W. Perkins, Fayetteville, for appellees.
Appellee Florence D. Cassidy obtained a $30,000 judgment against appellant Marjory Holt Rudolph in a personal injury case and the cause is here on appeal. Appellant has filed in this court a motion to be permitted to file a supersedeas bond in the sum of $25,000, alleging that she is insolvent and cannot make a $30,000 bond but that she has liability insurance and is able to make a $25,000 bond. The insurance carrier is not a party to the litigation. Since appellant alleges in the motion that she is insolvent it is obvious that a bond for only part of the judgment is for the benefit of one who is not a party to the action. Appellant is not merely asking that she be permitted to file a bond for a part of the judgment--she wants a particular $25,000 superseded--the $25,000 for which the insurance carrier may be liable. Otherwise the motion would be meaningless, as an order of this court merely allowing a supersedeas bond for part of the judgment and leaving appellee at liberty to attempt to collect the other part pending appeal would leave the judgment creditor in position to proceed against the carrier for that part of the judgment not superseded.
Actually, there are only two parties before this court: the appellant Rudolph and the appellee Cassidy. Appellant Rudolph says she should be allowed to make a bond for part of the judgment because she cannot make bond for the judgment in full. The fact that she is insolvent and cannot make a supersedeas bond for the full amount of the judgment is no justification for this court authorizing a bond for a lesser amount, even assuming, but not deciding, that we are permitted to do so by Act 555 of 1953. If the insurance carrier were a party to this suit and seeking to make a bond only for the amount for which it could be held liable under the terms of its policy there might be good grounds for permitting it to do so, but the insurance company is not a party.
Appellant further contends that Ark.Stats. § 27-2125 authorizes the making of a bond for part of the judgment. The statute provides: 'The supersedeas may be issued to stay proceedings on a part of a judgment or order, in which case the bond shall be varied so as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewell v. Fletcher
...Everything he had was taken.Indigency is not a defense to failure to post a bond to preserve the status quo. See Rudolph v. Cassidy, 225 Ark. 951, 286 S.W.2d 489 (1956). As quoted above, failure to obtain this bond was a pivotal reason the trial court gave to deny Sims relief on remand. Yet......
-
Todd v. Kelly
...rule has been supported in at least two other jurisdictions. Fitzgerald v. Addison, 287 So.2d 151 (Fla.App.1973); Rudolph v. Cassidy, 225 Ark. 951, 286 S.W.2d 489 (Sup.Ct.1956)." 182 N.J.Super. at 495-96, 442 A.2d Rosato concluded that defendant's insurance company could file a supersedeas ......
-
Zahler v. DeSantis
...Order and Opinion (2d Cir., 1966, Concur. MOORE, C.J.) Confronted here with circumstances strikingly indistinguishable from those present in Rudolph DiLallo, this Court is impelled to adopt the reasoning by those Courts, and to adhere to those decisions. It is certain that the instant Motio......
-
Fitzgerald v. Addison
...herein. MANN, C.J., ane McNULTY, J., concur. 1 Colon v. Marzec, 1969, 116 Ill.App.2d 278, 253 N.E.2d 544.2 See e.g., Rudolph v. Cassidy, 1956, 225 Ark. 951, 286 S.W.2d 489. In refusing to permit a partial supersedeas, the Arkansas Supreme Court observed:'. . . If the insurance carrier were ......