Case Name: James R. Battle vs. William L. Woolf
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1852-01
Citations: 23 Miss. 318
Docket Number: 
Parties: James R. Battle vs. William L. Woolf.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
James R. Battle vs. William L. Woolf.
After the term of the circuit court., to which an appeal is taken from a justice of the peace, it is too late to move the court to dismiss the appeal for the insufficiency of the appeal bond, provided the bond be voidable only, and not void.
An appeal bond, executed upon an appeal from a magistrate to the circuit court, is no part of the record, unless it be made so by a bill of exceptions; and this court cannot look beyond what the law makes part of the record.
In error from the circuit court of Lauderdale county; Hon. John Watts, judge.
The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
S. L. Hussey, for appellant,
Cited and commented on 1 Stew. (Ala.) R. 61; lb. 454; Me Gilvry v. Jackson, 4 Plow. 245.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Fisher
delivered the opinion of the court.
From a judgment recovered against him by William L. Woolf, before a justice of the peace, James R. Battle appealed to the circuit court of Lauderdale county. This appeal was returned to the September term, 1846, of said circuit court, at which time the case was entered upon the docket and continued. It also appears to have been continued at the March term, 1847. No other proceeding appears to have been had till the March term, 1848, when a motion was made by Woolf to dismiss the appeal for want of sufficient, bond, which motion was sustained by the court.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that after the term to which an appeal is taken from a justice of the peace, it is too late to move the court to dismiss the appeal for the insufficiency of the appeal bond. This position is correct, provided the bond is merely voidable and not void. Jenkins v. Cauley, 1 Stew. 61.
But there is no bill of exceptions making the bond part of the record; and under the ruling of this court in previous decisions, we cannot look beyond what the law makes part of the record.
The judgment must therefore be affirmed.