395 P.2d 271 | Alaska | 1964
Appellant contends that the superior court erred in ordering dismissal of his appeal from the magistrate court for failure to comply with the provisions of Magistrate Civil Rule 13 pertaining to the filing of a cost bond on appeal.
Appellant had filed a cost bond, but it was late. The bond was due to be filed no later than August 17, 1963, which was 30 days after entry of the magistrate court’s judgment. The bond was not filed until September 18, 1963. On September 13 appellee Wakefield had moved that the appeal be dismissed for the reason that no cost bond had been filed, or in the alternative that appellant be ordered to file the bond. Later, appellee entered into a stipulation with appellant whereby appel-
Appellee’s attempted waiver of the requirements of Magistrate Civil Rule 13(e) was not binding upon the superior court.
The judgment is affirmed.
. Magis.Civ.R. 13 governs appeals from the magistrate court to the superior court. Subdivision (e) of that rule provides:
“Cost Bond on Appeal. A bond on appeal shall be filed with the magistrate not later than 30 days after entry of the judgment appealed from. The bond shall be in an amount to be fixed by the magistrate. It shall have sufficient surety and shall be conditioned to secure the payment of costs if the appeal is dismissed or the judgment affirmed, or such costs as tlio superior court may award if the judgment is modified. After a bond on appeal is filed, an appellee may by motion raise objections to the form or amount of the bond or to the sufficiency of the surety which shall be determined by the superior court. If a supersedeas bond is filed, no separate cost bond on appeal is required.”
. Vogt v. Winbauer, 376 P.2d 1007, 1009 (Alaska 1962),
. Magis.Civ.R. 15(a) provides:
“Failure to File or Insufficiency of Bontl. If a cost bond on appeal or su-persedeas bond is not filed within 30 days alter entry of the judgment appealed from, or if the bond filed is found insufficient, application for leave to file any such bond may be made only in the superior court.”
. Montgomery Ward v. Thomas, Opinion No. 236, 394 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1964) (granting or refusal of request for new trial) ; Mitchell v. Knight, Opinion No. 241, 394 P.2d 892 (Alaska 1964) (ruling on challenge of juror for cause).