MONKON BOY, Appellant, v. HENRY KAI, a natural guardian of FEEDOR KAI et al., Appellee.
MOTION TO DISMISS AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.
Heard: May 31, 1982. Decided: July 9, 1982.
- A single surety whose property valuation covers the required penalty of a bond may suffice, where the supporting papers of the second surety are defective.
- A bond which is sufficiently descriptive in its construction and its condition clear, intelligible and capable of enforcement, though lacking in other respects, is nevertheless legal. Hence, a single surety and his bond whose documents meet all other requirements may file an appeal bond.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal announced from a final judgment in an action of ejectment rendered by the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, to which appellant excepted and announced an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In support of his appeal, appellant posted an appeal bond secured by two sureties, the property of one of whom was defective. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds that no approved bond was filed within statutory time and that the property of one of the sureties was defective. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that even though the sup-porting papers of one of the sureties were defective, those of the other surety were proper and legal in all other respects to support a valid bond.
Joseph Dossen Richards appeared for appellant, while S. Benoni Dunbar appeared for appellees.
MR. JUSTICE MABANDE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellee as natural guardian of Feedor Kai and others commenced an action of ejectment against Appellant Monkon Boy in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, for the recovery of six (6) acres of land lying and situated in New Georgia, Montserrado County. To this complaint, defendant/ appellant filed a two count answer denying the allegation. Trial was held and verdict brought in favor of appellee. Judgment was accordingly rendered, excepted to and appellant prayed for an appeal to this Court on a four count bill of exceptions. While the case was pending for the hearing of the appeal, appellee’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging the following: that no approved bond was filed within statutory time; that the description of the property as required by statute was not followed by appellant; and that the property valuation of one of the sureties was defective.
At the hearing of the motion, counsel for appellant conceded the defect in the property valuation of one of the sureties. The issues therefore important for our consideration and determination are as follows: (1) whether a single surety whose property valuation covers the required penalty of a bond may suffice in the absence of the second surety? and (2) whether a single surety and his bond whose documents meet all other requirements may file an appeal bond?
We shall consider these issues in the reverse order. From a perusal of the motion papers, it is evident that the bond and the supporting papers procured by one of the sureties are all proper and legal in all other respects to support a valid bond.
During the arguments, counsel for appellant conceded that the bond papers submitted by one of the sureties, Henry Duncan Togbah, did not meet the full requirements of the law. Because of this admission of appellant’s counsel to this averment in the motion, we shall not consider it further, but to deny the legality of those documents.
The relevant portion of the judgment appealed from reads thus:
“The verdict was oral, which was delivered by the foreman, to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to recover his land. The oral verdict of the empanelled jury being unanimous and it having supported the evidence adduced at the trial, the same is hereby confirmed and affirmed. And defendant is adjudged liable and must vacate the land.”
It is not a monetary judgement. Therefore, any nominal amount set as penalty in the appeal bond under such circumstances shall suffice.
In Tubman v. Greenfield, [1981] LRSC 18; 29 LLR 200 (1981), decided July 31, 1981), it is held that:
“In all appeal bonds in civil cases, financial sufficiency is the prevailing feature because the objects of an appeal bond in such cases are the indemnification of the successful party and payment of costs.”
In Smith v. Page, [1950] LRSC 10; 10 LLR 361 (1950), it was held that a bond which is sufficiently descriptive in its construction and whose conditions are clear, intelligible and capable of enforcement though lacking in order respects is nevertheless legal.
In view of these authorities and the issues joined by the parties, we are of the opinion that appellant’s bond is sufficiently legal and capable of enforcement. With respect to the appeal bond and its related documents as submitted by Joseph Neor Cooper, we find them to be legal and proper.
We therefore hold that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be and is hereby denied with costs against appellee. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to docket the appeal for consideration by this Court at its ensuing October Term. And it is hereby so ordered.
Motion denied.