KAMM SAAB, Appellant, v. BHARWANEYS INC., Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DEBT COURT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued June 3, 1975. Decided June 27, 1975. 1. An order dissolving an attachment precludes any subsequent action on the bond. 2. The unappealed ruling of a Justice in chambers is binding on all lower courts. In certiorari proceedings before the Justice presiding in chambers, the writ of attachment in a debt action was ordered dissolved. The defendant thereafter brought a motion in the lower court to enforce the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s attachment bond. The lower court denied the motion and an appeal was taken from the ruling. The Supreme Court held that the Justice’s unappealed ruling was binding on all lower courts and his ruling that the attachment be dissolved left no attachment bond whose terms and conditions could be enforced. The ruling was affirmed. Moses K. Yangbe for appellant. James G. Bull for appellee. MR. Court. JUSTICE AZANGO delivered the opinion of the On October 24, 1973, appellee instituted an action of debt by attachment against appellant for $7,054.27, in which he tendered his plaintiff’s indemnity bond securing defendant in the amount of $10,581.39, being one and onehalf times the amount sued for. 289 290 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS At the call of the case in the court below, defendant filed a motion to vacate the attachment proceedings, because it was unnecessary and illegal. The motion was heard and denied. Certiorari proceedings were instituted against the trial judge before Justice George E. Henries, presiding in chambers, who denied it. Judgment on the trial judge’s ruling on the motion to vacate was reversed and the attachment dissolved. A mandate was sent to the court below ordering it to resume jurisdiction over the debt action. Subsequently defendant filed another motion for the court to enforce the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s attachment bond on the grounds that: “I. Plaintiff instituted an action of debt against the defendant by attachment proceedings, and as a result, defendant was arrested, embarrassed, harrassed, his car seized and he himself held in custody until the following day when he was released on bail. “2. That to secure the writ of attachment plaintiff filed an indemnity bond, to indemnify the said Kamil Saab for all the injuries which he may have sustained by reason of said writ of attachment not exceeding the sum of $10,581.39. Defendant respectfully requested the court to take judicial notice of its records in the case with particular reference to plaintiff’s attachment bond. “3. That the attachment was unnecessary and illegal, as a result of which defendant was illegally and wrongfully imprisoned and his car seized ; as a further result he was humiliated and disgraced by such arrest and imprisonment. “4. That at the call of the case, defendant filed a motion to vacate the attachment proceedings but said motion was denied by this court. Consequently defendant proceeded to the Supreme Court on certiorari proceedings in order for the Justice in chambers to review the interlocutory ruling made as aforesaid. LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 291 Defendant submits that after arguments before the Justice by counsel for both petitioner and respondent, a ruling was made reversing the ruling of this court. That is, the attachment proceedings were vacated, to which ruling the respondent did not except nor appeal, and the cost of the proceedings before the Justice has been paid. Defendant prays the court to take judicial notice of the opinion of the Justice and the mandate which reversed the ruling of this court.” The trial judge refused to entertain this motion and grant the prayer of defendant for payment of $10,581.39. Hence, this appeal has come before us on a bill of exceptions containing 7 counts. Let us consider the lower court’s ruling denying the motion by defendant to enforce the terms and conditions of the attachment bond. “It is noted that according to the record, a motion was filed by the defendant to enforce the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s bond. The action on the bond is an independent suit and which is not cognizable before this court; especially when the movent is seeking to recover damages on the bond, and by mandate of the Supreme Court the attachment for which plaintiff’s bond was intended has been dissolved, and at the dissolution of the attachment bond all bonds connected therewith ; that is, the bond filed by the defendant as well as the one filed by the plaintiff become null and void for the purpose of the attachment. For this court to proceed with the hearing on the bond of attachment which the Supreme Court has ordered vacated and dissolved will be contemptuous and hence the resistance to the application made by the defendant must be rejected and the motion denied.” The judge’s position in this ruling seems to be quite in order, in view of the fact that the mandate of the Justice, growing out of his ruling in chambers which was not appealed from, could not have been disobeyed by an 292 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS inferior court without inviting contempt proceedings against such inferior court. Richardson v. Perry, 14 LLR 7 (1960). The Supreme Court has said also, that its opinions and judgments, and this includes unappealed rulings in chambers, are binding on all inferior courts. Richards v. McGill, [1937] LRSC 24; 6 LLR 81 (1937), and Manning v. Karpeh, [1938] LRSC 2; 6 LLR 172 (1938). The question of action on the bond must be subordinated to every other issue related to the attachment, which the Justice had dissolved. The dissolution affected everything in connection with the attachment; therefore, there could be no attachment bond, the terms and conditions could not have been enforced. In view of the foregoing, it is our holding that the judgment of the court below refused to entertain defendant’s motion to enforce the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s attachment bond, is hereby upheld and affirmed to all intents and purposes, with costs against appellant. And it is so ordered. ilifirmed.