Case ID: tenn_37/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McKinney, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Polly Davis vs. Owen Dyer.
    1.ircuil Appeal. In forma pauperis. Acts of 1811, ch. 22, \ 11, and, 1821,-eh. 22, 2 1. Upon an appeal in forma pauperis from the Oircuit Court to the Supreme Oourt, the pauper oath must he taken : Court. An oath in such case, taken before a justice^ nullity, and an appeal granted upon it will he <
    2. Cases Cited. McGallister vs. Scrice, 7 Yera
    EROM UNIONl
    This is an action of ejectment from the Oircuit Oourt of Union county. At the February Term, 1858, before Judge Turley, verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff, who, being dissatisfied therewith, prayed an appeal in error to this Court. The appeal was granted upon the plaintiff’s affidavit in forma .pauperis, taken before a justice of the peace.
    CROZiER & Reese, and Mynatt, for the plaintiff.
    McFarland and Cocke, for the defendant.
   McKinney, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Oourt.

This cause purports to have been brought up to this Court by an appeal in error, prosecuted in forma pau-peris; and a motion has been entered by the defendant’s counsel, to dismiss the appeal. The ground of the motion is, that the affidavit of the, plaintiff, upon ■which the appeal was allowed by the Court, was sworn to before a justice of the peace. The record shows, that the granting of the appeal, upon this affidavit, was opposed by the defendant; but upon its being made appear to the Court, that the plaintiff was confined to her bed, and unable to appear in Court, the objection was overruled, and the appeal granted.

In this the Court erred. We have repeatedly held, that' the oath must be taken in Court. The affidavit made before a justice, is a mere nullity. The justice had no authority to administer the oath; and the case is in no better condition than if no such paper were contained in the record. The oath of the party’s inability to bear the expenses of the appeal, is the substitute for the bond required by the general provision of the act of 1811. And as the- taking of such bond is a judicial act of the Court, so is the taking of the oath also. It follows, that the appeal which the Court had no power to grant without either a bond or the oath taken in due form, as prescribed by the act of 1821, must be dismissed. See 7 Verger’s Rep., 277.