| Mich. | Nov 2, 1899
Kelator brought an action of assumpsit for work and labor in justice’s court against the Fisher Electrical Manufacturing Company, and recovered a judgment for $251.16. Tbe amount of the judgment does not appear to have been contested. The sole controversy was whether the claim was entitled'to preference under Act No. 94 of the Public Acts of 1887 (3 How. Stat. §
Act No. 94 provides simply for a preference for labor debts in the case of an involvent person or corporation, and requires the court to specify in the judgment the part, portion, or amount of the claim which is preferred. Thereupon execution may issue requiring that the amount of such preferred claim be first made out of the goods and chattels, and, for want thereof, then of the lands and tenements, of the defendant. The suit was commenced by the usual summons, with a declaration upon the common counts and a plea* of the general issue. By the terms of this bond the obligors are only required to pay if the preference is sustained. If the preference is not sustained, then they are not obliged to pay the judgment, although it is a valid one against the defendant. Is this a bond contemplated by the statute ? Appeals are purely statutory. Act No. 94 makes no provision for an appeal on the question of preferences. We must therefore look to the general statute authorizing appeals from justice’s courts. That statute (3 How. Stat. § 7000) provides for a bond to pay the judgment rendered in the circuit court in favor of the appellee. There is no provision for an appeal from a part of the judgment. It follows that the bond is not such as the statute requires, and the writ will issue directing the dismissal of the appeal, unless a valid bond be filed under the rules and practice of the court.