Case ID: ohio-ca_29/html/0127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

APPEALS FROM JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
    Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
    William Enger v. George King.
    Decided, June 10, 1918.
    
      Bond — On Appeal from a Justice of the Peace — Executed, Within Time, When — Sections 10216 and 1038.
    The provisions of Section 10216, fixing the manner of computing the •time within which an act is required by law to be done, applies to practice in courts of justices of the peace, and an appeal bond perfected before a justice of the peace in accordance therewith is not open to attack on the ground that it was not perfected within the time required by law.
    
      A. L. Steuer, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. J. Armbruster, contra.
   Lawrence, J.

This is a proceeding in error to reverse a judgment rendered by the court of common pleas in an action brought there on appeal from the court of a justice of the peace. Enger, plaintiff in error, was defendant in both the lower courts.

In the court of common pleas' a motion was made to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the appeal bond was not signed within the time required by law; this motion-was sustained, and error is now prosecuted in this court to reverse the judgment of the court of common pleas thereon.

From the transcript of the justice of the peace it appears that the judgment was rendered September 6, 1917, and the appeal bond was given and approved September 17, 1917, and the sole question now presented for our consideration and determination is, was the appeal perfected within the time required by law.

The court takes judicial notice that the 16th day of September, 1917, fell on a Sunday. Section 10383 of the General Code provides :

“Within ten days from the time a justice renders judgment, the party appealing therefrom must give a bond to the adverse party, though he need not sign it, with at least one sufficient surety to be approved by such justice, in a sum not less than fifty dollars in any ease, nor less than double the amount of the judgment and costs.” * * *

The General Code has been the law in Ohio since its approval by the Governor in 1910.

Section 10216 of the General Code provides:

“Unless otherwise specifically provided, the time within which an act is required by law to be done shall be computed by excluding the first-day and including the last; except that the last shall be excluded if it-be Sunday.”

One object of the Legislature in creating the codifying commission, if not its chief purpose, was to do away with different statutes relating to the same condition.

Before the General Code became effective, Section 4951 of the Revised Statutes, now Section 10216 of the General Code, did not apply to practice in the justices’ courts.

Part Third of the General Code covers the Remedial Legislation of the state, and is divided into nine subdivision or titles: Title I, “Preliminary,” contains general provisions applicable to all the courts, and included therein is Section 10216 quoted above; Title II, “Procedure in Justices’ Court;” Title III, “Procedure in Probate Court, ’ ’ followed by titles, applicable to common -pleas and court of appeals respectively, which clearly demonstrates to -our minds that Section 10216 must be construed as extending to acts in all the courts. We can see no reason why it should not so apply, and we hold that- it does and a bond given in accordance therewith is sufficient.

This being true, ile judgment of the-court of common pleas is reversed, and ihe case remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Grant, J., and Dunlap, J., concur.