THOMAS N. HODGE and YIWIDI HODGE, parents of FRANK TAI HODGE, deceased, Appellants, v. H. ABRAHAM COMPANY, and SHELL COMPANY, LTD., and MAROUF HASSENIEH, by and through their agent HAFTS ABRAHAM, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MARYLAND COUNTY. Argued May 9, 1968. Decided June 14, 1968. 1. The failure of the sureties to an appeal bond to bind themselves to the appellees, consitutes a defect in the appeal bond sufficient to render the appeal liable to a motion to dismiss. 2. An allegation in the appeal bond improperly stating the chain of appeal, similarly renders the appeal subject to dismissal. In the course of an appeal taken from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, a motion was made to dismiss the appeal. The basis for the motion was the appeal bond, in which the sureties bound themselves to the Sheriff of the County and not the appellees, and the recital that the appeal was taken from a Magisterial Court to the Circuit Court. The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed. No appearance for appellants. J. Dossen Richards for appellees. MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL Cecil Dennis and delivered the opinion of the court. This is a case that was filed, heard, and determined in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Maryland County. The appellants, plaintiffs below, excepted to the judgment of the trial court and prayed for an appeal to this 81 82 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS appellate court. Their request being granted, they prosecuted their appeal. The record in this case was transmitted to the office of the clerk of this Court on January 22, 1968, and the case was accordingly docketed on our trial docket for this Term of Court. The case having been reached on the docket and assigned, it was called for hearing on the 9th day of May. At this point, the Court’s attention was drawn to the fact that the appellees’ counsel had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, but the Court then hesitated to go into the hearing of the motion because of the absence of the appellants and their counsel. However, since the case had been placed on the bulletin board the day previous, the Court felt itself authorized to proceed with the hearing and the appellees’ counsel argued the grounds of their motion and submitted. Before undertaking to lay out the grounds of the motion to dismiss, for another time we want to emphasize that the rules of this Court will be strictly adhered to and observed in regard to cases assigned and bulletined for hearing, except for cogent and reasonable excuses timely made. The Supreme Court will not violate the hoary principle that “courts will not do for parties that which they should do for themselves,” and it matters not what principles are involved in any given case, for the path pursued will be the administration of impartial justice to all concerned. The motion to dismiss as filed and argued by the appellees’ counsel is set forth below. “Now, the above named appellees, by and through their counsel, most respectfully move and pray the dismissal of the appeal as taken by the appellants and to affirm the ruling of the trial judge and submit the following : “I. Because appellees say that the appeal bond filed LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 83 by the appellants and by which appellees are to be indemnified, is fatally and materially bad and defective, in that said bond recites that the appeal is taken ‘from the Magisterial Court for the City of Harper to the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Maryland County, Republic of Liberia, at its August Term, 1967.’ Whereas, under the provisions of the statutes on appeals, appeals are taken to the Supreme Court of Liberia from judgments, rulings, etc., of the Circuit Courts. Moreover, there was no, nor could there legally have been any, action of damages for a wrong tried by ‘the Magisterial Court for the City of Harper,’ nor an appeal taken therefrom to the Circuit Court for Maryland County. it 2. And because appellees respectfully contend that this Court can take no legal cognizance of said appeal bond for the reason that it relates to an appeal taken to ‘the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland County,’ not to this Court. In other words, there is no appeal before this Court taken by the appellants in which they have filed a valid and enforceable bond indemnifying the appellees. Appellees request judicial notice be taken of the said bond certified to this Court by the clerk of the trial court and forming a part of this case. “3. Appellees further submit that the bond is legally faulty, in that the appellants did not bind or obligate themselves and their sureties unto the appellees, but unto the sheriff. It is respectfully contended that the appeal bond is in the nature of a contract, the parties to which are the appellant, or obligor, and the appellee, or the obligee, so that in the event an action is brought on the bond, the appellees would be the proper party plaintiff and not the sheriff.” This motion, on its face, strikes at the very foundation of the appeal, in that it attacks certain material defects in the bond which must necessarily render it insufficient if the 84 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS grounds of the motion are found to be legally sound. An appeal bond is one of the essential prerequisites to the completion of an appeal before this Court and if found to be defective in any of its important parts, on attack by the appellee, the appeal must crumble. We find that the case originated in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, Maryland County, August 1967 Term, and that the trial judge on September 15, 1967, made a ruling, dismissing the case, which ruling is the framework of this appeal. Despite the fact that the case was originally filed in the Circuit Court, yet plaintiffs-appellants, in the preparation of the appeal bond, though venue was laid in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, bound themselves to the Sheriff for Maryland County and not the appellee, and set forth in the body of the bond that the appeal was taken from the Magisterial Court, for the City of Harper, Cape Palmas, to the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland County, August 1967 Term. To present a clearer picture of the appeal bond in question, we undertake to quote the said appeal bond hereunder : “Know all men by these presents, that we, Thomas N. Hodge and Yiwidi Hodge, plaintiff-principals, and Wilmot P. Bright and Edwin G. Hodge, being freeholders and householders in the Republic of Liberia, do herein bind ourselves jointly and severally unto the Sheriff of Maryland County, R.L., in manner following, to wit: “That the plaintiffs-principals will prosecute the appeal now taken from the Magisterial Court, for the City of Harper, to the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland County, Republic of Liberia, at its August 1967 Term, and will comply with the judgment of the said court or of any other court having appellate jurisdiction of such cause, and will indemnify the defendantsappellees against all costs resulting from the said ap- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 85 peal, should said appeal end in favor of the defendants-appellees. The penalty of this bond is $100,500.00. Dated this i6th day of September, 1967.” In the most modest language we can employ, this is not an appeal bond according to our statutes, and must legally be regarded as a nullity. In substantiation of our opinion in this regard, we will look at our statutes controlling appeals to determine our support under the law. In our Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:1014 (in part), we find : “Failure to file an appeal bond within the specified time or filing an insufficient bond stall be grounds for dismissal of appeal.” Again, in � 1020(b) following, relating to dismissal of an appeal: “Failure to file an approved appeal bond or material defect in an appeal bond (insofar as such failure or defect is not remedied in accordance with the provisions of section 1014 above) ; . . .” We are of the opinion that the grounds of the motion are well taken, because the bond on its face is vitally defective and cannot be legally remedied under any circumstance; in fine, it does not constitute an appeal bond in conformity with the law prevailing; hence, the motion filed by appellees to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted and the appeal dismissed, with costs against the appellants. And it is hereby so ordered. Motion granted.