FRIDOLI STUDER, Appellant, v. ANTOINETTE TUBMAN, et al., Appellees.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL. Argued April 3, 1975. Decided May 2, 1975. 1. The party appealing is required to superintend the appeal and see that all legal requisites are duly completed. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the notice of completion of the appeal had been tardily filed, as were the statements of property valuation accompanying the appeal bond. In addition, no affidavit by the sureties to the bond had been appended. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. T. G. Collins for appellant. Moses K. Y angbe for appellees. Joseph F. Dennis and MR. JUSTICE the Court. WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of The above entitled cause of action was instituted in the Monthly and Probate Court, Montserrado County, by means of a petition for the payment of an alleged claim against the estate of the late President W. V. S. Tubman. Pleadings rested at petitioner’s reply. The matter having been heard by the Probate Court, judgment was rendered February 14, 1974, in favor of respondents, now the appellees. Petitioner noted exceptions to this ruling and announced an appeal to this Court. In the interim appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The three-count motion alleges procedural irregularities, and appellees have contested the grounds advanced for dismissal of the appeal. 151 152 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS In examining the record certified to this Court, we observe that the notice of completion of the appeal was served on appellees by the ministerial officer of the court on April 19, 1974. It is further observed that the notice of completion of the appeal was duly issued by the clerk of the trial court on April 9, 1974, which was within the statutory time allowed for issuance. The service of the notice of completion of the appeal past the statutory time allowed is attributed to the negligence of the appellant. In Johnson, Turpin and Dunbar v. Roberts, i LLR 8 (1861), this Court declared that the party appealing should superintend the appeal and see that all legal requisites are timely completed. It is obvious that appellant failed to cause the sheriff to serve the notice of completion of the appeal within the statutory time. Count one of appellees’ motion is hereby sustained. Further inspection of the record in the case under review, as averred by the movent, reveals no affidavit of each surety and no statement of property valuation of each surety. This is buttressed by a certificate of the clerk of the Monthly and Probate Court, Montserrado County. Although we observe statements of property valuation purporting to accompany the appeal bond in this case as prescribed by law, yet the statements of property valuation are dated April 19, 1974, and May 3, 1974, respectively, far beyond the time within which everything that was necessary to be done to perfect the appeal should have been completed. It is contended by the appellees that there is no affidavit of sureties attached to the bond in keeping with our Civil Procedure Law. “Affidavit 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 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 153 that both combined are the owners of the property offered as security; “(b) A description of the property, sufficiently identified to establish the lien of the bond ; “(c) A statement of the 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.” Rev. Code i :63.2. It is obvious, regrettably, that these material documents required by statute as an integral part of the appeal bond were omitted. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted, with costs against appellant. And it is so ordered. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.