BROWN v. DAVIS

Annotate this Case

BROWN v. DAVIS
1916 OK 570
157 P. 925
59 Okla. 32
Case Number: 7504
Decided: 05/23/1916
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BROWN
v.
DAVIS et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Liability on Bonds--Enforcement--Judgment.
By virtue of chapter 249, Sess. Laws 1915, where a supersedeas bond has been filed to stay execution on a judgment pending appeal, and the appeal is dismissed, upon proper motion of defendant in error, judgment will be rendered here against the sureties upon such bond.

Error from District Court, Grady County; F. B. Swank, Assigned Judge.

Action by John X. Davis, guardian of James Davis and others, against T. W. Brown and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Judgment on supersedeas bond.

J. B. Pope, for plaintiffs in error.
Barefoot & Carmichael, for defendant in error.

RITTENHOUSE, C.

¶1 The plaintiff, John X. Davis, guardian of James Davis, John Henry Davis, and Benjamin Davis, minors, obtained judgment in the sum of $ 1,828, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum from February 9, 1915, and costs of suit, against T. W. Brown, defendant, in the district court of Grady county, Okla. This proceeding in error was commenced to review such judgment. A supersedeas bond was executed, approved, and filed by T. W. Brown, as principal, and R. H. Sutherland and A. G. Click, as sureties, and execution on such judgment stayed. The cause was dismissed by this court April 26, 1916, for failure to prosecute, and a motion has been made herein for judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond.

¶2 Under authority of Long v. Lang & Co., 49 Okla. 342, 152 P. 1078; Starr v. Haygood, 53 Okla. 358, 156 P. 1171, and Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co. v. Kimple, 57 Okla. 398, 157 P. 317, the motion must be sustained. Judgment is therefore entered in this court against R. H. Sutherland and A. G. Click, sureties, in the sum of $ 1,828, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum from February 9, 1915, and for the costs of suit, for which execution may issue out of the trial court.

¶3 By the Court: It is so ordered.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.