Case ID: la-ann_2/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kino, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Davis v. Hood.
    Where .the transcript ef an appeal is not filed within three days after the return, and tho failure does not result from any act or neglect of the clerk or other officer, the appeal must be dismissed. Such a ease is not embraced by the act of 20 March. 1839, s. 19.
    Appeal from th© District Court of Carroll, Curry, J.
    
      Willson, Prentiss, Finney, Stacy and Sparrow, forth© appellant. Thomas, for the defendant.
   Th© judgment of .the court was pronounced by

Kino, J.

The appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal, on tho ground that the transcript was not filed on tho day when it was returnable, nor within three days thereafter. The appeal was made returnable on the second monday of January; no extension of time-was granted for bringing it up, and the record was not filed until the Hth of February following. The transcript was delivered to tho plaintiff in ample .time to have been filed before the day fixed in the order, and appears to have been mislaid, while in the hands of the counsel .or commission merchants of the appellant.

The failure to file within the timo fixed, has not been in consequence of any act or negligence of the clerk or other officer, and falls within none of the provisions of the ae.t of 1839, which authorise us to give relief.

Appeal dismissed,