Case Name: David Burke, Jr. v. Barnabas Jackson and others
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1871-12
Citations: 22 Ohio St. 268
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Burke, Jr. v. Barnabas Jackson and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 22
Pages: 268–270

Head Matter:
David Burke, Jr. v. Barnabas Jackson and others.
Motion for leave to file petition in error.
On the 25th day o± April, 1868, the trustees of Eaton township, - county, laid out and established a ditch. On April 30, 1868, David Burke, Jx\, gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Probate Court, but did not file his appeal bond until May 18, 1868. The transcript was filed May 27,1868. The Probate Court having rendered a judgment in the case, which, upon proceedings in error, was-affirmed by the Common Pleas, Jackson et al. filed a petition in error in the District Court. That court held that the appeal had not been perfected; that the Probate Court acquired no jurisdiction of the cause, and for that reason reversed the judgments of the Common Pleas and Probate Courts, and adjudged the costs in error against David Burke, Jr. David Burke, Jr., now moves for leave to file-a petition in error to reverse said judgment of the District Court.
Estep £ Burke, for the motion :
The chief, if not the only question relied on in this case,, is, “Did the plaintiff in error duly perfect an appeal from the decision of the township trustees to the Probate-Court?” The law governing such appeals is in 59 Ohio-Laws, 95, sec. 6.
The objection specially made in this case is, that the-appellant did not, within the time required by the act-, perfect, his appeal.
There are but two periods of time specified in the statute. First, that notice must be given within five days to the township clerk; and second, that a transcript shall be filed with the, probate judge within ten days from, the filing of the-bond,. Both of these things were doue. Statutes regulating appeals are to be liberally construed. Mack v. Bonner, 3 Ohio St. 366; Hable v. Renick, 1 Ohio St. 172; Ib. 603. But it is undeniable that there has been a literal compliance with the statute.
2. If the appeal was not perfected, there was no jurisdiction, and the judgment for costs in the District Court was erroneous.
The reporter did not find any counsel named as opposing-the motion.

Opinion:
Ry the Court.
1. Section 7 of the act of March 24, 3864 (S & S. 324), which gives to parties interested the sight of appeal from the decision of the township trustees in locating drains, ditches, etc., by "the applicants giving written notice thereof to the clerk of such township within five days after the decision of said trustees, and by filing with said clerk a bond," etc., is to be construed as requiring the bond to be filed within said period of five days, and unless it be so filed the appellate court has no jurisdiction of the appeal.
2. Where the court has no jurisdiction of a cause, it can render no judgment therein for costs, but costs of proceedings in error to reverse a judgment rendered without jurisdiction must be adjudged to the plaintiff in error.
Motion overruled.