25-2223 Sureties; justification; requirements. - Nebraska Statutes

25-2223. Sureties; justification; requirements.The surety in every undertaking, bond and recognizance, provided by this code, must be a resident of this state and must have property, liable to execution, situate in the county in this state in which such undertaking, bond or recognizance is to be given and filed, worth at least double the sum to be secured, beyond the amount of all liens and encumbrances thereon and his exemptions therein; but this provision shall not be held to apply to incorporated surety companies authorized by the laws of this state to transact business. Except in the case of incorporated surety companies, where there are two or more sureties in the same undertaking, bond or recognizance, they must, in the aggregate, have the qualifications prescribed in this section. SourceR.S.1867, Code § 898, p. 549; Laws 1897, c. 96, § 1, p. 379; R.S.1913, § 8572; C.S.1922, § 9523; Laws 1923, c. 112, § 2, p. 270; C.S.1929, § 20-2224; R.S.1943, § 25-2223.AnnotationsSureties on appeal or supersedeas bond are required to justify, or bond may be quashed. Fisher v. Keeler, 142 Neb. 79, 5 N.W.2d 143 (1942).Where appeal bond on appeal from county court was given with but one surety and was otherwise defective and appellant refused to amend bond notwithstanding appellee's repeated and specific objections, district court had no jurisdiction and should have sustained motions for nonsuit and dismissal. In re Estate of Kothe, 131 Neb. 531, 268 N.W. 464 (1936), opinion vacated on rehearing, 131 Neb. 780, 270 N.W. 117 (1936).Court may permit amendment of bond by adding affidavit of justification. In re Estate of Hoagland, 128 Neb. 219, 258 N.W. 538 (1935).Letters testamentary are not void or subject to collateral attack because sureties on executor's bond failed to make affidavit as to qualifications. In re Hoferer's Estate, 116 Neb. 254, 216 N.W. 826 (1927).Residence in county is not essential unless specifically required by statute. State ex rel. Lions Ins. Co. v. Baker, 45 Neb. 39, 63 N.W. 139 (1895).