Woolfolk v. Bruns

• Decision Date: 17 December 1890
• Citation: 47 N.W. 460,45 Minn. 96
• Parties: WOOLFOLK v BRUNS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 Minn. 96

47 N.W. 460

WOOLFOLKvBRUNS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 17, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Upon an appeal from an order, proceedings on it are stayed, and rights under it saved, only as of the date of filing the supersedeas bond. The supersedeas does not relate back to the date of the order so as to annul proceedings already had, or to restore rights under it which had previously expired.

Appeal from district court, Clay county; MILLS, Judge.

R. R. Briggs, for appellant.

Burnham & Tillotson, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

A supersedeas is a statutory remedy, and is only obtained by a strict compliance with all the required conditions, one of which in case of an appeal from an order is that the supersedeas bond shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the order is filed. Gen. St. 1878, c. 86, § 10. Hence, proceedings on the order are stayed, and rights under it are saved, as of the date of the filing of the bond. The supersedeas does not relate back to the date of the order, so as to annul proceedings already had or restore rights under it already lost. The stay simply leaves the proceedings on the order, and the rights of the appellant under it, just as they are when it takes effect on the date of filing the bond. In the present case, the right of the appellant under the order to serve an amended answer had expired before the supersedeas bond was filed; and hence was not “saved” by the stay, as there was then nothing to save. See Board v. Gorman, 19 Wall. 661;Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201,5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 8. Order affirmed.