Town of Winfield v. Moffatt

Citations

• 42 Ill. 47

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—when to object to insufficiency of appeal bond on appeal from, commissioners of highways. The objection that the appeal bond, given on an appeal from commissioners of highways to three supervisors, does not recite correctly the order of the commissioners, cannot be made for the first time in the Supreme Court; it should be made before the supervisors.</p> <p>2. Appeal bond—if defective, a sufficient one maybe fled. Where the appeal bond given upon an appeal from commissioners of highways to three supervisors, has been accepted by the town clerk, the parties appealing are in such condition that they should not be prejudiced by any defect appearing in it, but leave should be given them to file a more perfect bond.</p> <p>3. Practice—when to object that parties appealing do not appear to be owners or agents of land. The objection that the parties taking such an appeal do not appear to be owners of, or agents for, any tract of land upon the route of the proposed highway, and therefore could not take the appeal, can-</p> <p>° not be made for the first time in the appellate court: it should be made before the supervisors, so as to give an opportunity to supply the proof on that subject.</p> <p>4. Appeal bond — sureties. Quere, whether two persons appealing in such case, and joining in the appeal bond, may not be regarded as security for each other, so as to obviate the objection that the bond has no securities.</p>