Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0027-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Green, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RICHARD MORRIS v. JAMES SMITH ET AL.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 43.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1849.
    1. APPEAL. Not perfected on, pauper oa,th, when granted on bond.
    Where the appeal is granted upon the appellant giving bond as required by law, it cannot be perfected by taking the pauper oath. [McPhatridge v. Gregg, 4 Cold., 326; Henly v. Claiborne, 1 Lea, 224; Mowry v. Davenport, 6 Lea, 82.]
    2. SAME. Time allowed to perfect.
    Thirty days’ time may be allowed for perfecting’ an appeal by giving’ bond according’ to law, if so expressed in the decree. [McPhatridg’e v. Gregg’, 4 Cold., 326; Hale v. Parmley, post 29. Bond must be made within the time limited. Snyder v. Summers, 1 Lea, 481. By statute now, thirty days’ time may be allowed, either to give the bond or to take the pauper oath. Code, sec. 4898.]
    In this cause a motion was made in the supreme court to dismiss the appeal; and it appeared that Morris prayed an appeal from the decree of the chancellor, wMch was allowed on his filing a sufficient appeal bond; and to enable him to do so, he was allowed a limited .time [one month, 11 Hum., 134] after the adjournment of the term, the bond to be given before the clerk and master. [But instead of giving the bond, the appellant took the oath prescribed for poor persons, 11 Hum., 134.]
   Green, J.:

The rule allowing the chancellor to give time for the giving of bonds for the prosecution of appeal was established before I came on the bench. If it had not been so, I would never have consented to the establishment of the rule, and I am unwilling to extend it beyond the adjudicated cases. The present order is not within the rule, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.