ENID BUCHANAN ESTIME, by and through her husband, LIONEL ESTIME, Appellant, v. RAYMOND CONCRETE PILE COMPANY, by and through its manager, PAT O’BRIEN, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued November 7, 1969. Decided January 30, 1970. 1. Although it is the function of a trial judge to fix the amount of indemnification required in an appeal bond, nonetheless, it is the function of the appellant under the responsibility imposed upon him by law, to move the lower court to increase the amount, and in the event he does not, he must justify to the appellate court the amount set by the trial judge in the appeal bond. Upon failure to do either of the foregoing, the appeal will lend itself to dismissal, for failure to have filed a valid appeal bond. 2. The proper amount of the indemnification in an appeal bond is computed at one and one-half times the amount of the judgment or, as in the instant case, one and one-half times the amount sued for when the judgment is one dismissing the complaint and no sum, therefore, appears in the judgment appealed from. 3. It is entirely proper procedure for appellee to move to dismiss the appeal in the appellate court for insufficiency of the indemnity provided for in the appeal bond, though he could have moved for justification of the indemnity set in the court below before jurisdiction had passed to the Supreme Court upon perfection of the appeal taken. 4. An affidavit of the sureties must accompany the appeal bond, conforming to the requirements under the Civil Procedure Law, L. 1963-64, ch. III, � 602(3), as well as a certificate of the Revenue Services, as required under section 6302(4) thereof. During the pendency of an appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint brought by plaintiff for personal injuries, the appellee moved to dismiss, alleging the indemnification provided in the appeal bond was insufficient and was otherwise defective in that the bond did not have attached to it the affidavit of the sureties. Motion granted, appeal dismissed. J. Dossen Richards for appellant. Richard 4. Henries, Joseph F. Dennis, and Toye Bernard for appellee. 485 486 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the opinion of the court. On August 15, 1968, Enid Buchanan Estime, by and through her husband, Lionel Estime, sued on an action of damages for personal injury against the Raymond Concrete Pile Company, in the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, sitting in its September 1968 Term. After the pleadings, the issues of law were dealt with, and the court below dismissed the action because it was not instituted in the proper legal setting. To this ruling made by Judge John A. Dennis, on March 7, 1969, plaintiff recorded his exception and brought his appeal. Upon the completion of all of the jurisdictional steps, the case was docketed in this Court, but when called for hearing, the Court’s attention was drawn to the fact that appellee had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending that the appeal bond was insufficient in amount and that the qualification of the sureties thereon appeared inadequate. The appellant opposed the motion by denying these arguments. On argument, counsel for the appellant urged that since the subject of his appeal is a ruling on legal issues and the merits of the action were never tried, there was no amount set forth in the judgment to govern the bond’s indemnity, hence $5oo.00 therein was sufficient. He further maintained that there is no provision of law which requires that the amount of indemnification in an appeal bond in a civil matter should be one and one-half times the amount sued for. Therefore, their appeal bond filed in this case was not insufficient and offers no ground for a dismissal. Continuing, he maintained that the amount of $5oo.00 set in the bond was fixed by the trial judge, who is authorized under the law to do so, hence this was no omission on the part of appellant, who is not authorized to fix the amounts posted in appeal bonds. He also argued that there is no statutory provision LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 487 which requires the appellant to attach an affidavit of each surety to his appeal bond, and if the appellee felt that the bond was insufficient, it should have moved the court below to make the bond sufficient (L. 1963-64, ch. III, Civil Procedure Law, � 5 ro8) . The failure to do so at the proper time is tantamount to a waiver. Our statutes require an appellant to take his appeal bond to the trial judge to assess the indemnification. According to a line of opinions of this Court, in all instances the required indemnification has been calculated at one and one-half times the amount sued for. “Every appellant shall give an appeal bond in an amount to be fixed by the court, with two or more legally qualified sureties, to the effect that he will indemnify the appellee from all cost or injury arising from the appeal, if unsuccessful, and that he will comply with the judgment of the appellate court or of any other court to which the case is removed. Such bond shall be approved by the trial judge and filed with the clerk of the court within sixty days after rendition of judgment.” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:1013. “Failure to file an appeal bond within the specified time or filing of an insufficient bond shall be grounds for dismissal of appeal. But an insufficient bond may be made sufficient at any time during the period before the trial court loses jurisdiction of the action. Thereafter if the appellant discovers an insufficiency in his appeal bond, he may petition the appellate court for permission to make it sufficient” Id., � 101 4. This is an action for damages for personal injuries, and the foregoing are fundamental principles of law applying thereto that have not been changed in substance nor structure. In this case the movent attacked the insufficiency of the amount set in the bond. Yes, we agree that it is the duty 488 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS of the trial judge to set the sum in the bond, but if this sum is inadequate, according to law, it becomes the responsibility of the appellant to justify the deficiency or suffer the consequence in keeping with statute. It is clearly observed that an insufficient bond is grounds for the dismissal of an appeal. It does not matter whether or not the appellee moves for justification in the court below before it loses jurisdiction. In most cases this is rarely done, because the appellee profits in the appellate court on the insufficiency. But it is incumbent on the part of the appellant to comply with all requirements to insure that his bond is adequate. According to our Civil Procedure Law, L. 1963-64, ch. III, security for a bond is provided for in section 6301. “Security for Bonds. Except as otherwise provided by statute, any bond given under this title shall be secured by one or more of the following: “(a) Cash to the value of the bond; or cash deposited in the bank to the value of the bond as evidenced by a bank certificate; “(b) Unencumbered real property on which taxes have been paid and which is held in fee by the person furnishing the bond; “(c) Valuables to the amount of the bond which are easily converted into cash; or “(d) Sureties who meet the requirements of section 6302. . . As to the affidavits required, section 6302 thereof applies: “3. illfidavit of Sureties. The bond shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the sureties containing the following: ” (a) A statement that one of them is the owner or that both combined are the owners of the real property offered as security; .” LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 489 “(b) A description of the property, sufficiently identified to establish the lien of the bond ; “(c) A statement of total amount of the liens, unpaid taxes, and other encumbrances against each property offered; and “(d) A statement of the assessed value of each property offered. . . . “4. Certificate of Revenue Services. The bond shall also be accompanied by a certificate of the Revenue Services that the property is owned by the surety or sureties claiming title to it in the affidavit and that it is of the assessed value therein stated, but such a certificate shall not be a prerequisite to approval by the judge.” The law makes it very clear that a defective appeal bond is grounds for the dismissal of an appeal, and where the indemnification set forth in an appeal bond is inadequate this renders the bond insufficient and defective, and subject to dismissal if not corrected before it is attacked. Besides, the failure to attach each surety’s affidavit to the bond as required by the Civil Procedure Law just quoted is in itself sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the motion is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed, with costs against the appellant. The clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below ordering it to resume jurisdiction and proceed to enforce its judgment. And it is hereby so ordered. Motion granted; appeal dismissed.