UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

The dismissal of an appeal from a money judgment by a state appellate court as a reasonable measure for safeguarding the collectibility of that judgment does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, upon the facts in this case, the state appellate court's dismissal of petitioner's appeal was such a reasonable measure. Pp. 348 U. S. 38-45.

1. No violation of the Equal Protection Clause has been shown in this case, because there has been no showing that anyone comparably situated has been treated differently from petitioner. P. 348 U. S. 41.

2. Dismissal of the appeal in this case did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 348 U. S. 41-45.

(a) Hove v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, distinguished. Pp. 348 U. S. 41-42.

(b) While a statutory review is important, and must be exercised without discrimination, such a review is not a requirement of due process. P. 348 U. S. 43.

(c) Where the effectiveness of a money judgment is jeopardized by the judgment debtor, he has no constitutional right to an appeal extending that frustration. Pp. 348 U. S. 43-44.

3. Dismissal of petitioner's appeal is not regarded as a penalty imposed as a punishment for criminal contempt. It was a reasonable method of sustaining the effectiveness of the state's judicial process as against the rights of a judgment debtor who appealed without filing a supersedeas bond and refused to comply with reasonable orders designed to safeguard the value of the judgment pending a decision on his appeal. Pp. 348 U. S. 44-15.

Judgment affirmed. clubjuris

Page 348 U. S. 38