Case ID: del_18/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Trimble, Sides & Co., p. b. a., vs. Francis Dugan, d. b. r.
    
      Appeal—Amendment—Certificate of Justice—Justice of Peace— Appeal Bond—Practice—Rule of Cowrt.
    
    1. Under Section 16, Rule g, of Superior Court, the Justice is allowed to amend his certificate on or before the first Friday of the term to which the appeal is entered; and such amendment will not be allowed after the time stated in said rule.
    2. It appeared by the record of the Justice (l) that the appeal bond contained the word “successors” instead of “executors;” and (2) that the certificate of the Justice did not set out that the transcript was “a true copy of all the docket entries,” but simply certified that it was a “true copy and truly copied from the records ” etc. Held that the appeal should be dismissed.
    
      (June 5, 1900.)
    
    Lore, C. J., and Pennewill and Boyce, J. J., sitting.
    
      Herbert H. Ward for appellant.
    
      J. Frank Biggs (special appearance for purpose of making a motion.)
    Superior Court, New Castle County,
    May Term, 1900.
    Appeal (No. 48,
    May Term, 1900.)
    
      Ward, for appellant,
    asked that the Justice be allowed to amend his certificate in the above entitled cause. The Court held that under Section 16 of Rule 9 of the Rules of the Superior Court (requiring that applications for such amendments must be made on or before the first Friday of the term of the Court to which the appeal is entered), the time for making such application had passed, and the rule could not be extended.
    
      Biggs, for respondent,
    moved that the appeal be dismissed, because (1) the security was not taken according to the statute (Rev. Code, 751, Sec. 25) in that the appeal bond contained the word “successors” when it should be “executors;” also because (2) the certificate of the Justice was defective as it did not set out that the transcript was a true copy of all the docket entries as required by the statute (Rev. Code, 737, Sec. 3I¡) but simply certified that it was a “true copy and truly copied from the records,” etc.
   After argument by the respective counsel, the Court ordered the appeal dismissed.