In Delhi Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Hassell, 730 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1987, orig. proceeding), the judgment debtor filed a bond for the full amount of the compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and interest, but did not file a bond to cover the declaratory relief. Id. at 160. There, the appellate court concluded the entire judgment was superseded by the bond, but it determined the amount of the bond was manifestly insufficient to protect the judgment creditor's rights should the judgment be affirmed on appeal. Id. at 161. In Delhi, the appellate court determined the question raised by the record was a matter of sufficiency of the bond, rather than its validity, and concluded the trial court could not proceed to enforce the judgment. Id. Moreover, the appellate court indicated the judgment debtor's failure to ask the trial judge to set the amount of the supersedeas bond to cover the declaratory judgment did not render the bond ineffective. Id.