City of Belzoni v. Johnson
121 So. 3d 216
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Johnson, a female Belzoni patrol officer, sued the City and two officers for gender discrimination and harassment.
- A Humphreys County jury awarded $50,000 against each defendant, with total final judgment $213,734.88 (one-third each).
- Defendants appealed; this Court affirmed the judgment; Johnson later sought to enforce the bond against the City alone.
- The November 18, 2010 supersedeas bond listed the City and two defendants as joint and several obligors in the total amount of $213,734.88.
- The bond was approved, and Johnson garnished the City's funds to recover the City’s one-third, arguing the City was bound for the entire judgment.
- The circuit court ruled the City bound for all three defendants under the bond; the City appealed, contesting that it cannot act as a surety and the bond was deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City qualifies as a surety under Rule 8 | Johnson argues the City acted as a surety for all defendants under the bond. | City contends it cannot be a surety because it is a principal liable on the judgment and cannot bind itself as a co-appellant for others' | City does not qualify as a resident surety; bond invalid as to surety status. |
| Whether the circuit clerk had authority to enforce the bond against the City under Rule 65.1 | Johnson seeks enforcement against City via Rule 65.1 as a surety | City argues bond lacked valid sureties and clerk had no authority to enforce it against a principal | Clerk lacked authority; bond invalid; enforcement against City improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoebridge v. Will C. Hartwell Realty & Ins. Co., 244 Miss. 630 (Miss. 1962) (sureties bound by contract; principals cannot be treated as sureties)
- Hudson v. Gray, 58 Miss. 591 (Miss. 1881) (a principal cannot act as a surety for other appellants)
- Copeland v. Robertson, 236 Miss. 95 (Miss. 1959) (sureties jointly and severally liable for entire judgment; rule may apply to bonds)
- Baskin v. May, 17 Miss. 373 (Miss. Err. & App. 1848) (bond requires two or more sureties; single-surety bond invalid)
- Aetna Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 127 Miss. 440 (Miss. 1921) (purpose of supersedeas bond is to preserve status quo during appeal)