Snow v. Duxstad

• Citation: 23 Wyo. 82,147 P. 174
• Decision Date: 24 March 1915
• Docket Number: 766
• Parties: SNOW v. DUXSTAD
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

147 P. 174

23 Wyo. 82

SNOW v. DUXSTAD

No. 766

Supreme Court of Wyoming

March 24, 1915

ERROR to District Court, Laramie County, WILLIAM C. MENTZER, Judge.

The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Burke &amp Riner, for plaintiff in error.

The bond was without consideration and is void. The surety was released by the judgment dismissing the divorce suit. Contracts of suretyship are strictly construed. A proceeding in error is a new suit and the bond here in controversy cannot be extended to the consequences of a new suit. The injunctional order would have fallen with the dismissal of the suit, and the bond which was given in lieu of the restraining order also fell at that time. The judgment of dismissal was not stayed. The laws of the state applicable to the proposition that the bond is void are Sections 3929, 4897, 4903, 4904 and 4906, Compiled Statutes 1910. A temporary restraining order requires a bond. (Herenstein v. Herrman, 6 N. P. (Ohio) 98; In Re George, 5 C. C. (Ohio) 207; Diehl v. Friester, 37 Oh. St. 473; Baker v. Meisch, 29 Neb. 233, 45 N.W. 685-7; State v. Rush County, 35 Kan. 150, 10 P. 535; State v. Kearney County, 42 Kan. 739, 22 P. 735; Van Fleet v. Stout, 44 Kan. 523, 24 P. 960; In Re Pavey, 36 P. 878 (Kan.) , 52 Kan. 675; Murphy v Montandon, 3 Ida. 325, 29 P. 851; Bruce v Conyers, 54 Ga. 678; Shevlin v. Whelen, 41 Wis 88; Homan v. Brinkerhoff, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 184; Vose v. Cockcroft, 44 N.Y. 415, at 420-421; Ford v. Fuget, 29 Ind. 52; State v. Bartlett, 30 Miss. 52.) Snow, the surety, was released by judgment dismissing the suit. (32 Cyc. 73; Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 680; Smith et al. v. United States, 2 Wall. 219; Reese v. United States, 9 Wall. 13; United States v. Freel, 186 U.S. 309; Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co., 191 U.S. 416.) The words "in the premises" used in the bond relate to orders of the class above mentioned. (Alaska Co. v. Hirsch, 47 P. 124, Id. 51 P. 340 (Calif.); Tutonia Fire Ins. Co. v. Mund, 102 P. 89.) A proceeding in error is a new suit. (Robinson v. Orr, 16 Oh. St. 287; Smith v. Fisher, 32 Week. Law Bul. (Ohio) 394; McAlpin v. Clark, 1 N. P. (Ohio) 195; Thompson v. Gest &c. Assn., 13 Oh. Cir. Ct. 250; Heberger v. Sabbert, 48 Week. Law Bul. 12; Charles v. Fawley, 71 Ohio St. 50, 72 N.E. 294; Levering v. National Bank of Morrow County, 100 N.E. 322; Clark v. Sheeley, 69 Nebr. 717, 96 N.W. 593.) A petition in error starts a new action. (2 Cyc. 510; Section 5130, Comp. Stats. 1910; Sec. 6731 of Whittaker's Annotated Ohio Civil Code; City of Rockford v. Compton, 115 Ill.App. 406, 2 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 324.) The dismissal would have terminated the restraining order, and the bond being given in lieu of such order also fell. (Harrabin v. Iowa City et al., 142 N. W. (Ia.) 212; Coleman v. Hudson &c. Co., Fed. Cases No. 2983; Hoyt v. Carter, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 140; Yale v. Baum, 70 Miss. 225, 11 So. 879; Lyons v. Green, 68 Ark. 205, 56 S.W. 1075; Day v. Bailey, 41 So. 448, 117 La. Ann. 154; Lewis v. Jones, 67 S.C. 157, 43 S.E. 525, 22 Cyc. 951; Merrimack &c. Bank v. City of Clay Center, 219 U.S. 527; Smith v. Whitfield, 20 So. 1012, 38 Fla. 211; Brevort v. City of Detroit, 24 Mich. 322; State v. Harness, 26 S.E. 270, 42 W.Va. 414; Knox v. Harshman, 132 U.S. 141, 33 L.Ed. 249; Butchers &c. Assn. v. Crescent &c. Co., 10 Wall. 273, 19 L.Ed. 915; Moore v. Moore, 59 Tex. 54; Williams v. Pouns, 48 Tex. 144; High on Injunctions, Secs. 1702-1711; Old Hickory &c. Co. v. Bleyer, 74 Ga. 201.) The judgment of dismissal was not stayed. (Sections 5116 and 5124, Compiled Statutes 1910.) A subsisting judgment, though afterwards reversed, justified all acts done by the plaintiff in enforcing it. (Freeman on Judgments, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, Sec. 482; Black on Judgments, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2, Sec. 513; Chicago &c. Co. v. Garrett, 87 N.E. 1009, 239 Ill. 297; Stout v. Guely, 13 Colo. 604; Macklin v. Allenberg, 100 Mo. 337; Pierce v. Stinde, 11 Mo.App. 364; Woodridge v. Boyd, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 151; Dunfee v. Childs, 59 W.Va. 227; McCormick v. McClure, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 466; Miller v. Dixon, 42 P. 1014 (Kans.) ; Thompson v. Thompson, 69 S.W. 714 (Ky.) ; Langley v. Warner, 3 N.Y. 327; Fidelty Trust &c. Co. v. Louisville &c. Co., 58 S.W. 712 (Ky.) ; Husband's Receiver v. Fidelity Trust &c. Co., 139 S.W. 812 (Ky.) ; Porter v. Small, 120 P. 393 (Ore.) ; Freeman on Judgments, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, Sec. 482; Hamilton v. Bell, 123 Cal. 93, 55 P. 758; Bank of the United States v. Bank of Washington, 6 Pet. 8; Sections 5116 and 5124 Compiled Statutes 1910; Henderson v. James, 39 N. E. (Ohio) 805; Laughlin v. King, 133 P. 1073.) This case is analogous in principle to a case of a bail bond given in the lower court decided in favor of the principal. The obligation of the bond is exonerated, although the decision from the lower court is afterwards reversed. (Duncan v. Tindall, 20 Oh. St. 567; State v. Glenn, 40 Ark. 332; State v. Murphy, 10 Gill. & J. (Md.) 365; People v. Hathaway, 68 N.E. 1053; Butler v. Bissell, 1 Root (Conn.) 102; Whipple v. People, 40 Ill.App. 301; Baker &c. Co. v. Fisher, 35 Kan. 659, 12 P. 20; Section 5030, Comp. Stats. 1910; People v. Manning, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 297; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366; Hilliard v. Mutual &c. Co., 35 N. J. L. 415.)

M. A. Kline, for defendant in error.

A restraining order differs from an injunction. (Sec. 4901, Compiled Statutes 1910; San Diego Water Co. v. Steamship Co., 35 P. 652; Ex Parte Grimes, 94 P. 669; Creech v. Long, 51 S.E. 616; State v Wakely, 44 N.W. 488; Wetzstein v. Boston &c. Mining Co., 63 P. 1043.) The above authorities are also to the effect that a restraining order is valid without a bond. An examination of the Nebraska, Ohio and Kansas cases cited by the opposition will show that a mere failure to execute a bond will not render an order of injunction void. There is a distinction between an erroneous order and a void order. (White v. Nuckolls, (Colo.) 112 P. 331; Miles v. State (Neb.) 105 N.W. 301; Cline v. Whittaker (Wis.) 129 N.W. 400; Hattlestead v. County (Iowa) 114 N.W. 629; State v. Baldwin (Iowa) 10 N.E. 647; 1 Joyce on Injunctions, Sec. 247; Lewis v. Rowland, (Ind.) 29 N.E. 922.) The consideration for the execution of a bond was sufficient. (Whitney v. Clary, (Mass.) 13 N.E. 393; Union Bank v. Geary (U. S.) 8 Law. Ed. 60; Judy v. Louderman (Ohio) 29 N.E. 183; Fresno Packing Co. v. Hannon (Cal.) 116 P. 687; Sheldon et al. v. Biglow et al., 100 N.W. 502; Sewer Pipe Co. v. Donnelly, 113 N.W. 1.) A surety is estopped to deny the recitals in his bond. (U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Woodson Co., 145 F. 144; State v. Smith, 87 Miss. 551, 40 So. 22; Spreyne v. Garfield Lodge, 117 Ill.App. 253; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. McLaughlin (Neb.) 109 N.W. 390; American Bonding Co. v. Ottumwa, 137 F. 572; Willis v. Rivers, 80 Ga. 536; May v. May, 19 Fla. 373; Aetna Indemnity Co. v. Waters, (Md.) 73 A. 712; Moffitt v. Garrett, (Okla.) 100 P. 533; Bailey v. Aetna Indemnity Co., (Cal.) 91 P. 417; Easton v. Ormsby (R. I.) 27 A. 216; Gutter v. Joiner (Wash.) 105 P. 457; Brady v. Onffroy (Wash.) 79 P. 1004.) The Wyoming divorce Statute authorizes restraining orders pending suit for the protection of personal and property rights and no bond is specifically required. It is a general rule existing in most of the states. (Springfieid M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Peck, 102 Ill. Rep. 269; Gardner v. Gardner, 87 N.Y. 114; Gray v. Gray, 65 Ga. 193; Stillman v. Stillman, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 169; Ricketts v. Ricketts, 4 Gill. (Md.) 107; Fishli v. Fishli, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 338; Frakes v. Brown, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 295; Questel v. Questel, Wright's Ohio Rep. 492; Vermilyea v. Vermilyea, 14 How. Prac. 470; Quirk v. Quirk, 22 La. Ann. 575; Reiffenstein v. Hopper, 36 U. C. Q. B. 295; Forest v. Forest, 3 Abb. Prac. 163; Caskey v. Caskey, 4 Ky. Law. Rep. 811; Harper v. Rooker, 52 Ill. 370; Gardner v. Donnelly, 24 P. 1072.) Contracts of suretyship are construed the same as other contracts. (27 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2nd Ed.) 450; Corey v. Schiesswohl, (Colo.) 114 P. 292; Lambert v. Haskell, 90 Cal. 611, 22 P. 329; Becoritz v. Sapperstein, (Ind.) 92 N.E. 550.) Courts will adopt that construction placed on a contract by the parties thereto. (32 Cyc. 72.) The proceedings in error did not constitute a new suit. The Ohio cases relied upon by plaintiff in error to the effect that error proceedings constitute a new suit are based upon the Ohio Constitution and are not in point here. The appealed case was the same case and the bond given to secure the vacation of the restraining order was binding, as to all subsequent orders made pendente lite. The reversal of a judgment restores the parties to an action to the same condition in which they stood before it was rendered. (Duxstad v. Duxstad, 100 P. 114 (Wyo.); Simmons v. Price, 18 Ala. 405; Harrison v. Trader, 29 Ark. 85; Mohler v. Wilteberger, 74 Ill. 163; Coalfield Coal Co. v. Peck, 105 Ill. 529; Sullivan v. Thomas, 6 Rich. (S. C.) 201; People v. Bowe, 20 Hun 85; Westall v. Altschul, 126 Cal. 164, 58 P. 458; Carpy v. Dowdell, 131 Cal. 499, 63 P. 780; Pach v. Gilbert, 7 N.Y.S. 336; Greene v. Woodland Ave. &c. R. Co., (Ohio) 56 N.E. 642; Freeman on Judgments (3rd Ed.) Sec. 481; Cable v. Ellis, 120 Ill. 136, 11 N.E. 188; Williams v. Simmons, 22 Ala. 425; U. S. Bank v. Bank of Washington, 6 Pet. 6; Reynolds v. Hosmer, 45 Cal. 616; McTilton v. Love, 13 Ill. 486; Hiller v. Hiller, 35 Ohio St. 645; Hay v. Bennett, 153 Ill. 271, 38 N.E. 645; Stanbraugh v. Cook, 86 Ia. 740, 53 N.W. 131; Ure v. Ure, (Ill.) 79 N.E. 156; Singly v. Warren, 18 Wash. 434; Bryant v. Fairfield, 51 Me. 149; Gott v. Powell, 41 Mo. 416; Wilson v. Caldwell, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 644; Carpy v. Dowdell, (Cal.) 63 P. 780; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 373, 21 Law Ed. 965; Miller v. Doran, et al., 245 Ill. 200, 91 N.E. 1039; Tutty v. Ryan, 13 Wyo. 134, ...