PORT BANGA LUMBER CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EXPORT & IMPORT LUMBER CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Final judgment having been entered in this court in the above-entitled
cause,^[1] an appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States was allowed by one of the members of this court, who at the
same time directed that a certified transcript of the proceedings be transmitted
to that court upon the filing by the petitioner of a supersedeas bond in the sum
of $20,000 United States currency approved by him.

Thereafter the citation of the plaintiff company was duly signed and a
supersedeas bond in the amount indicated was accepted and approved by the member
of the court who allowed the appeal.

One of the sureties whose name is signed to the supersedeas bond now moves
this court td permit him to withdraw from the bond, and, further, to relieve him
from all liability thereunder.

The acceptance of the bond and the signing of the citation by one of the
justices of this court transferred the jurisdiction of the cause appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United States. The power of the justice over the appeal and
the security, in the absence of fraud, was exhausted when he took the security
and signed the citation. “From that time the control of the supersedeas as well
as the appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
(Draper vs. Davis, 102 U. S., 370.)

In the case of Jerome vs. McCarter (21 Wall., 17), the Supreme Court
of the United States, in discussing.the jurisdiction of a justice to take
security on allowing an appeal to that court said:

“The justice who takes the security on appeal is the sole and exclusive judge
of what it should be, and his decision is final, unless he violates a statute or
a rule of practice.”

And again, in the case of Morrin vs. Lawler (91 Fed. Rep., 693), it
was said that the practice in the Federal courts prescribes that—

“When all the steps necessary to perfect an appeal to an appellate court have
been properly taken, the action is within the control of that court and the
trial court should not engage in undoing or modifying the proceeding by which
such jurisdiction’has been obtained.”

We think that under these rulings and upon principle it is manifest that this
court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide this application by the bondsmen,
which would necessarily have the effect of annulling the bond and vacating the
supersedeas, and perhaps of terminating further proceedings on the appeal. The
appeal was allowed and the transcript of the record ordered certified to the
court above, on condition that an approved bond be filed with the record.

The motion is denied.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Moreland, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.

---

^[1] 26 Phil. Rep., 602