State ex rel. Supervisors of Town of Otto v. Austin
| Decision Date | 01 March 1886 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, ex rel. the Supervisors of the Town of Otto, v. J. S. Austin |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Certiorari, directed to a justice of the peace of Otter Tail county, to review proceedings taken on an attempted appeal from a determination by the board of supervisors of the town of Otto in discontinuing and laying out a highway.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Charles L. Lewis, for relators.
No appearance for respondent.
There is here brought in question the validity of an appeal by one Jewell from an order of town supervisors to the respondent, a justice of the peace. The order appealed from discontinued an old road and laid out a new one. The filing of a bond with sufficient sureties is essential for the purpose of perfecting an appeal, and to give to the justice jurisdiction. Gen St. 1878, c. 13, § 60; State v. Fitch, 30 Minn. 532, (16 N.W. 411.) The bond filed in this case purports, in the body of it, to be the obligation of Charles W. Jewell, as principal, and of two others as sureties, and is conditioned for the performance of the expressed obligation by "the above-bounden Charles W. Jewell," etc. The instrument was, however, executed only by the sureties named. Upon its face the bond appears to be incomplete. It was not the obligation of the principal named, for he did not execute it. It did not, so far as appears, bind the sureties, because, as appears from the terms of the instrument, the obligation which they assumed was that of sureties for another who was to be the principal obligor. It was not, therefore, of effect as the bond of even those who executed it. Bean v. Parker, 17 Mass. 591; Wood v. Washburn, 2 Pick. 24; Russell v. Annable, 109 Mass. 72; Bunn v. Jetmore, 70 Mo. 228; Hall v. Parker, 37 Mich. 590. It may be that persons executing such an instrument, which upon its face appears to be incomplete, may, by their own conduct, subject themselves to liability thereon, or become estopped from questioning the completeness of the instrument; but this does not affect the question under consideration. The statute contemplates a bond which in itself expresses the obligation required to be assumed. Upon its face this bond expresses no obligation. The attempted appeal was therefore ineffectual, and the justice acquired no jurisdiction.
Some other questions relating to the jurisdiction of the justice were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North St. Louis Building And Loan Association v. Obert
... ... Co. v. Atkinson, 6 East 507; Moss v. State, 10 ... Mo. 338. And the same is true where it ... v. Moss, 2 Robin (La.) 367; State ex rel. v ... Austin, 35 Minn. 51, 26 N.W. 906; Martin ... ...
-
Novak v. Pitlick
... ... Ranck & Bradley and Ralph Otto for appellant ... Bailey & ... and as sureties, all of Johnson County, State of Iowa are ... held and firmly bound unto the ... signature of the others." Fletcher v. Austin, ... 11 Vt. 447 (34 Am. Dec. 698). See, also, ... ...
-
School District No. 80 In Morrison County v. Lapping
...but which has been executed only by the sureties, does not upon its face show any obligation on the part of the sureties. State v. Austin, 35 Minn. 51. -- Evidence. The evidence sustains the finding of the trial court that sureties upon a school district treasurer's bond executed it upon th......
-
Martin v. Hornsby
...was a mistake and inadvertence. The bond is joint and several, but this does not affect the principle upon which the case turns. State v. Austin, 35 Minn. 51. affirmed. H. H. Herbst, for appellant. In a joint and several bond the sureties are liable, even though the instrument is not signed......