ALFRED M. W. COLLINS, SR., Appellant v. BRECKWOLDT AND CO., Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DEBT COURT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued December 4, 1975. Decided December 31, 1975. 1. It is the responsibility of appellant to oversee his appeal to the end that all requirements for the completion of the appeal are met. The appellant was an attorney who bid for certain goods at an auction through his attorney. He gave a promissory note but failed to pay. The appellee took him before the Debt Court which ordered him to pay within 24 hours. An appeal was taken from the ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and upon motion of appellee dismissed the appeal. Lewis K. Free for appellant. Robert C. Tubman for appellee. MR. JUSTICE the Court. WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of This case presents a very peculiar and delicate feature, in that, from a survey of the facts as appear on the surface and as revealed by the record from the trial court, it would seem unlikely that a member of the legal profession would deliberately undertake to obstruct the interests of one who, with implicit confidence in the integrity of his customer, advances a certain amount to be returned or repaid at a given time ; upon failure to do so the creditor had to institute an action against the debtor to obtain a judgment. Thereafter, from the record in the case, certain merchandise was attached and seized, and 432 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 433 exposed to sale by auction. Appellant, through his duly authorized representative, Attorney John W. Williams, was the highest bidder at the sale and issued a promissory note to meet his obligation in settlement for the goods obtained, to be paid within 24 hours from the date of issuance of said promissory note. Since the vendee, appellant Alfred M. W. Collins, failed to meet the obligation, the Debt Court of Montserrado County issued a summons for his appearance, to ascertain why the obligation had not been met. The attorneys were thereafter summoned by the Debt Court in contempt proceedings. Attorney Williams testified first before Judge Sam Payne Cooper. “I hold in my hand an authority issued me t2th July, 1975, by Attorney Alfred M. W. Collins, Sr., which speaks for itself and upon this authority I made the bid of the goods in contention and was the highest bidder. My authority is self-explanatory and speaks for itself. I hand this to the Court. When the auction was completed the sheriff called me in his office and I told him that I did this upon authority and I will go and inform Mr. Collins that I was the highest bidder and he should come with me to the sheriff for the necessary payment. Mr. Collins issued a legal note of hand promising to pay the amount in question before 12 o’clock the next day and I was released from this responsibility. That is all I know. “Q. Mr. Witness, by this authority of co-defendant Collins which you have handed in to the court, tell this court whether Mr. Collins has taken delivery from the court of the goods bid according to you, if you know? “A. What I do know, the sheriff told him to remove his goods, because the sheriff was no longer responsible for them. 434 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Please tell this court whether he removed them, if you know? “A. Every day when I come to court I see the goods parked there. “The Court: Attorney John Williams is discharged with the thanks of the court.” Attorney Collins then testified. “Your Honor, so far as the auction of the face basins is concerned, it is a fact I authorized Mr. Williams to bid in for them and so far as I am concerned Mr. Williams has nothing to do with this case as being summoned, because when I came he made his report to me and he was off. I went to the sheriff, yes, I told the sheriff that I will pay for the goods if they are not broken ; the sheriff assured me that they were not broken, but co-defendant Williams made a false statement which I want to correct. When I asked the sheriff what are the goods doing here, the sheriff said to me, ‘Mr. Collins, nothing will be moved from there until I get my money’ and not what Williams said. The next day when I was to go back to the sheriff, besides telling the sheriff the previous day I don’t want the goods, I wrote him a letter that I did not want the goods and I cancelled the whole transaction and because of my being sick this whole night even now I did not have the strength to go through my files and bring a copy of my letter but the sheriff has the letter and the person who gave the sheriff the letter subsequently I will bring him to court or bring a copy of the letter and according to my letter I expressed to the sheriff and in person that I don’t want the goods, I am not taking them and I don’t want them.” The Court thereupon ordered Attorney Collins to pay the amount of the note within 24 hours. To which “Q. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 435 Alfred M. W. Collins, Sr., excepted and gave notice that he would take advantage of his constitutional rights before the Supreme Court as from today’s date to the October Term of the Supreme Court. It is obvious that Attorney Collins authorized Attorney John Williams to bid on his behalf for the merchandise sold. At the call of the case before this Court appellee submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds. This motion was resisted by appellant’s counsel. It was admitted by appellant’s counsel that appellant failed to give notice of completion of his appeal and as a result appellee had not been notified. Appellant’s counsel contended that he had filed his application for the issuance of a notice of completion of appeal but did not superintend the service thereof. It was the responsibility of the appellant to oversee his appeal to the end that all requirements for the comple- tion of the appeal were met. In view of the foregoing, appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the lower court affirmed, with costs against appellant. And it is so ordered. Judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed.