West v. Willey

Decision Date07 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 3741,3741
Citation453 P.2d 883
PartiesCleda J. WEST, a/k/a Mrs. T. A. West, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. John WILLEY, a/k/a George Meredith, Appellee (Defendant below).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

John W. Davis, Charlottesville, Va., R. G. Diefenderfer, Bruce P. Badley, Sheridan, for appellant.

Henry A. Burgess, Richard M. Davis, Jr., Sheridan, for appellee.

Before GRAY, C. J., and McINTYRE and PARKER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Cleda J. West, plaintiff in a suit brought in the district court of Sheridan County, has appealed from an order discharging her attachment of the wages of John Willey, defendant.

The brief on behalf of appellant indicates a hearing was had on defendant's motion to discharge plaintiff's attachment; that the court immediately ruled for defendant and forthwith issued its order discharging the attachment; and that immediately following the signing of the order counsel for defendant secured the check which had been garnisheed by the plaintiff.

Counsel for appellant represents to us that a request was made for the court to set a supersedeas bond and the court arbitrarily refused to set an amount on such bond. The record, however, is silent with respect to such request and refusal. We realize it is sometimes difficult for attorneys to get into the record what transpires when proceedings are oral, but nevertheless we cannot begin to presume what has taken place if it is not disclosed by the record.

It is understandable that time for arranging a supersedeas bond may be very short in some instances. If found to be so, the problem would be one for referral to the permanent rules committee.

As far as the appeal before us is concerned, counsel for appellant fails to suggest what relief could be given to his client even if we said the order discharging attachment was erroneous. No property is now held under the attachment, and counsel seems to agree we could do nothing about it except to render an advisory opinion for future cases. That is not a proper function of our court.

Therefore, without deciding whether an order discharging an attachment is an appealable order (as appellant claims it is), it is sufficient for us to say the question of whether the discharge was proper is in any event a moot question.

Where there is no statutory provision or rule specifically applicable to appeals from the discharge of an attachment, the weight of authority is that a supersedeas bond is necessary; and the filing of a notice of appeal does...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Stuebgen v. State, 4325
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 12 Abril 1976
    ...of future importance. To me, this amounts to the issuance of advisory opinions, a procedure that we ordinarily reject. See West v. Willey, Wyo., 453 P.2d 883 (1969); Brimmer v. Thomson, Wyo., 521 P.2d 574 (1974); and Cranston v. Thomson, Wyo., 530 P.2d 726 GUTHRIE, C. J., concurs in the con......
  • JBC of Wyoming Corp. v. City of Cheyenne
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 21 Diciembre 1992
    ...Superior, 716 P.2d 358 (Wyo.1986); Knudson v. Hilzer, 551 P.2d 680 (Wyo.1976); Cranston v. Thomson, 530 P.2d 726 (Wyo.1975); West v. Willey, 453 P.2d 883 (Wyo.1969). Cf. Reno Livestock Corp. v. Sun Oil Co. (Delaware), 638 P.2d 147 (Wyo.1981); Tobin v. Pursel, 539 P.2d 361 (Wyo.1975); Wallac......
  • Price v. Sorrell
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 28 Diciembre 1989
    ...500 P.2d 72 (Wyo.1972). Cf., Tobin v. Pursel, 539 P.2d 361 (Wyo.1975); Cranston v. Thomson, 530 P.2d 726 (Wyo.1975); West v. Willey, 453 P.2d 883 (Wyo.1969). On the other hand we are permitted, we even have said required, to affirm the judgment of the trial court on any proper ground appear......
  • Dunnegan v. Laramie County Com'rs
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1993
    ...Serv., 500 P.2d 72 (Wyo.1972). Cf. Tobin v. Pursel, 539 P.2d 361 (Wyo.1975); Cranston v. Thomson, 530 P.2d 726 (Wyo.1975); West v. Willey, 453 P.2d 883 (Wyo.1969). The appeal by Holmes and J & G Wholesale to this court presented issues relating only to unconstitutional vagueness in violatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT