Meredith v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Baltimore

McKee, J.: A money judgment having been originally entered in this case against the corporation defendant, it appealed to the Su[619]preme Court, and, for the purpose of staying execution of the judgment, an undertaking on appeal was given, pursuant to Section 942 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment appealed from was afterwards affirmed, and ,the remittitur, issued upon the affirmance of the judgment, was filed in the lower Court. Thirty days after the filing of the remittitur —it appearing from the record that the judgment had not been satisfied—the Court below, on an order to show cause, rendered judgment against the sureties on the undertaking, pursuant to Section 958, C. C. P., and from this judgment comes the appeal in hand.

It is contended that the judgment rendered against the sureties is void, because the Court had no jurisdiction over their persons; because it was given without due process of law, and without reasonable notice; and because the section of the Code under which it was given is unconstitutional. It is conceded that the lower Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit, and of the defendant against whom the original judgment was rendered, and from which that defendant appealed. Mow, that appeal was a continuation of the action; by it the original judgment entered in the action was suspended until the appellate Court had determined its validity; and when the sureties to the undertaking on appeal agreed that, in case of the affirmance of the judgment, or of any part of it, by the appellate Court, and of its non-payment by the judgment debtor, judgment might be entered also against them, in the Court from whose judgment the appeal was taken, according to the law under which the appeal was taken, they, in legal effect, voluntarily made themselves parties to the action, and submittedi themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court, therefore, had jurisdiction not only over the person of the original defendant to the action, but also, over the persons of the sureties to the undertaking on appeal in the case, until enforcement of any judgment recoverable against them as parties to the action.

And, having voluntarily made themselves parties to the action and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, they also assented to and adopted all the provisions of the law for the enforcement of the obligation incurred by their undertaking, and waived any constitutional or statutory [620]