There are many situations that arise or present themselves in the course of the administration of justice where the law demands that one of the parties, before the doors of justice are opened to him, shall give a bond to save harmless the other party in case the action or proceeding contemplated, is such as may by its wrongful use, or abuse, bring an injury to the other party to the action. This contract, in the form of a bond, is treated like other contracts of suretyship and is governed by the same principles of law, and the surety in such an instance may also claim the special rights and privileges of his contract of suretyship. The appeal bond is naturally one of the first bonds that we would come in contact with in court proceedings. The surety in the bond, for an appeal, must not himself be liable for the judgment from which the appeal is taken. The principal appealing must be some one who has an interest in the judgment, or decree, sufficient to bring him within the law which entitles such a person to an appeal.9 An appeal bond, to be effective and binding on the bondsman, must be approved by the proper officer, to be placed on file.

6 Allen vs. State, 61 Ind., 268. 7 Place vs. Taylor, 22 Ohio State, 317.

8 People vs. Harper, 91 I11., 357.

One who is surety on an appeal bond is liable only for the particular judgment appealed from; where there is an interlocutory order of affirmance in the Appellate Court, reserving leave to answer and new pleadings are framed, and a new judgment rendered on the new issues, the surety cannot be held to pay such judgment.10

Unless a proper order is entered, permitting the appeal to be had, there is no authority to the clerk to receive the bond, and the surety on such a bond would not be liable.

There are many other cases where a bond may be given in the course of the administration of justice; as attachment bonds, release bonds, redelivery and forthcoming bonds in attachment proceedings, bonds given in the matter of securing an injunction, bonds given in the action of replevin, and certain bonds which may be termed statutory bonds, as being required by rule of statute in certain cases. These various bonds are required for the purpose of indemnifying the party drawn into the litigation, and for the purpose of paying the damages that may result, in case the order of court should be found to be wrong.

9 Fisher vs Hanna, 21 Colo., 9.

10 Poppenhousen vs. Seeley, 3 Abb. Rep. Om. Cas., 615.

The bond, which the law requires as a condition precedent to the granting of an injunction, is usually the only recourse that the defendant has for the wrongful issue of the injunction writ, unless he can make out a case of malicious prosecution.11 The action on the bond does not accrue, until it is finally determined that the injunction was wrongfully issued. The injunction bond is strictly construed; parol evidence will not be heard to remedy formal defects. All the other contract essentials, necessary to the usual bond, are of course also required.

The special remedy of attachment offers three different inducements for the giving of bonds, viz., the bond to procure the attachment itself, which bond is given as indemnity to the defendant, if the writ of attachment is wrongfully issued; the bond to release the property after it is taken on the attachment writ, which is given by the defendant to get possession of the property only, and the bond given to discharge the attachment, which bond obligates the bondsmen to make good to the plaintiff such judgment as the plaintiff may recover in his action.

The replevin bond is given to secure the writ of replevin; it must be given to give the court jurisdiction; the conditions of such a bond are that the plaintiff will prosecute the action, and that he will restore the property, in case it is determined the writ was wrongfully sued out, and further, that the plaintiff will pay to the defendant the damages that he may suffer by reason of the writ, if it was wrongfully sued out.

11 Meyers vs. Block, 120 U. S., 211.