
    Marshall et al. v. Croom et al.
    
    
      Motion to dismiss Appeal.
    
    
      Sufficiency of security fon• costs. — An acknowledgment in these words, “We acknowledge ourselves securities for all the costs of the appeal taken_by Matthew A. M. and James B. M. from the judgment in said cause,” is sufficient security for the costs of the appeal, although there is another appellant, who is shown to be a married woman, and whose separate estate is affected by the decree appealed from; and it is not necessary that the approval of the security should be shown by the written indorsement of the clerk or register who accepted it.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court of Sumter..
    Heard before the Hon. A. W. Dillabd.
    The appellees in this case submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the following grounds: “ 1. Because no security for the costs of the appeal has been given. 2. Because no appeal bond has been given. 3. Because the certificate of the register in the court below fails to certify the names of the sureties for the costs of such appeal.”
    Snedicob & Cockrell, for the motion.
   PETERS, C. J.

The transcript shows, that the appeal is taken by Mrs. Augusta M. Gere, a married woman, who claims an interest in the property in controversy, under a conveyance from her father, executed since the Code of Alabama was proclaimed as the law of this State, and by Matthew A. Marshall and James B. Marshall. Matthew A. Marshall and James B. Marshall gave security for costs, by instrument in writing in these words, omitting the style of the case : “ We, G. M. Spinks and Caroline Spinks, acknowledge ourselves securities for all the costs of the appeal taken by the said Matthew A. Marshall and James B. Marshall from the judgment in said cause.” This was properly approved by the register, and a copy of the same sent up to this court as a part of the record, which is properly certified as such. The other defendant, Mrs. Gere, gave no security for costs, but claims the right to appeal as a married woman, on the ground that the decree of the learned chancellor in the court below is such as subjects to sale her separate estate. The record shows that she made the affidavit required in such a case.

The first and second objection to the appeal cannot be sustained. The acknowledgment for security for “ all the costs,” by Mr. and Mrs. Spinks, is sufficient, without more, to comply with the requisitions of the statute as to costs. Such an acknowledgment is in lieu of a bond. Crump v. Wallace, 27 Ala. 277; Riddle v. Hanna, 25 Ala. 484; Satterwhite v. Stdte, 28 Ala. 65. Here, the acknowledgment shows that the appeal is taken by the Marshalls, and security for the whole costs is given to bring up the whole case. This is enough to keep the case in this court, without more. Such an appeal will not be dismissed. Deslonde v. Carter, 28 Ala. 541. It is not necessary that the acknowledgment should be approved by the written indorsement of the register. If it has been received by that officer, approval will be presumed. Williams v. McConico, 25 Ala. 538.

The interest which the bill shows that Mrs. Gere claims in the land in controversy is sufficient to entitle her to appeal without giving security for costs. Whatever estate she may have in the land above said must necessarily be a part of her separate estate, either at common law, or under our statute. The decree of the court below subjects this interest to sale. This gives her the right to appeal without security for costs. Acts of Alabama 1870-1871, p. 45, § 1; Todd v. Neal’s Adm’r, at January term, 1873.

The motion to dismiss is denied, with costs.  