Case ID: tenn_13/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bell vs. Brown.
    When it appeared upon the record that an appeal simply, and not an appeal in the nature of a writ of error, was piayed to the supreme court, it was held that the omission was a clerical mistake, and cured by the acts of 1794, ch. 1, sec. 68, and 1809, ch. 49, sec. 21.
    This cause commenced in the county court; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff’s: appeal to the circuit court; verdict and judgment in that court, and “appeal” to the supreme court of errors and appeals. The bond is taken to prosecute an appeal in the nature of a writ of error.
    It is here moved by the appellant, to dismiss the cause from the docket, because brought up simply as an appeal.
    Rivers, for plaintiff in error,
    
      Washington, for defendant in error.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

By our acts, one of these modes may be adopted in bringing causes into this court: by writ of error, prayed in the court below and granted; appeal in the nature of a writ of error, prayed in like manner; or by filing the record with the clerk of this court, and assigning errors thereon.

The party bringing this cause into court will be taken as having adopted one of these modes. If 'in strictness we cannot call this an appeal in the nature of a writ of error, we may consider it as a writ of error obtained by filing the record simply, and then the party shall not be at liberty to dispute the attitude he has placed himself in before the court. We are prohibited from dismissing for the want of errors assigned. Act of 1829, ch. 3.

The writ is held to be matter of form where the record is filed simply; it is never made out in fact, and our practice does not require that it should be; both the law and practice of the court incline to examinations here upon , . . . e ... . . , , the merits; mere lorm, therefore, will not be looked to where it may defeat the ends of justice. The omission in this case, if it be one, is merely clerical, and is cured by the acts of 1794, ch. 1, sec. 68: 1809, ch. 49, sec. 21.

Overruling the motion to dismiss this cause, we on examination of the record find that no error has intervened, and therefore affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.