Case ID: cow_3/html/0379-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte John H. Clarke.
    On an appeal from a Justice’s Court to the Onondaga Common Pleas, between Clarke, appellant, and Pratt, appellee, the notice of appeal served on the Justice did not state, that he appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Onondaga. The appeal bond recited that the appeal was to that Court, and the Justice duly made and filed his return ; but the-Court, on motion, quashed it on the ground of the above defect in the notice.
    The notice °g¿ppeal ser~ justice pursu238, s. 36) did the party *apí pealed t0 iAe mon pleas of, &c, but the Crated btha6 the appeal was to that court % t£e made “a retara'> heU regular. . , ..... . „ Semb. the party cannot object that the notice of appeal is defective, but this lies with the justice only. If he dee» himself sufficiently informed, and return accordingly, it is enough, *J
    
    
      V. Birdseye
    
    moved for a mandamus commanding the C. P. to proceed with the appeal,
   Curia.

The Common Pleas have nothing to do with the question whether the notice was good or bad; If it contained such information as satisfied the Justice, and instructed him as to the place of return, it does not lie with the party to object that it is defective. Here was nothing to mislead or injure him. The bond was in the proper form ; and the intention of the appellant could not be mistaken.

Rule for an alternative mandamus.