Case Name: Gregory vs. Burnett and Wife
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1839-12
Citations: 1 Hum. 60
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gregory vs. Burnett and Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 60–61

Head Matter:
Gregory vs. Burnett and Wife.
Where an appeal is taken to the circuit court frpm the judgment of the •County court, making an appointment of guardian, by those contesting the appointment, if the transcript of the record from the county court is not filed fifteen days previous to the commencement pf the first term of the circuit .court occurring after the judgment below, the judgment of the county court, upon motion, mustbe affirmed. The failure to comply with the mandate of the statute precludes a re-hearing upon the facts of the case, and forever settles the legal rights of the contesting parties,
Keeble, for plain tiff in error,
cited act of 1762, ch. 5, seG, 24: act 1794, ch. 1, sec. 65: N. & C. 90: 8 Yerger, 164: 7 Yer-ger, 103: 7 Yerger, 304: 5 Hay. 30: 7 Yerg, 143: Wright’s distributees vs. Wright and others, M. & Yerg. 43: Massin-gal vs. Tate, 4 Hay. 30.
Hollingsworth, fpr defendant,
relied upon the act of 1762, ch. 1, sec 24, C. & IN. Dig. 370, and cited Craddock ys. Pritchet, Peck, 23.

Opinion:
Turkey, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
Edward Gregory was, at the July term of the county court pf Rutherford, appointed guardian of his grand-child, Sophro-nia Gregory; the appointment was contested by the defendants in error, the mother and step-father of the ward, and an appeal was prosecuted by them to the circuit court. The record from the county court was not filed within fifteen days previous to the commencement of the first term of the circuit court, and the defendant moved to have the judgment affirmed, under the provisions of the act of 1794, ch. I, sec. 66. This the circuit Gourt refused to do, but proceeded to re-hear the case, and changed the appointment as made by the county court. From this judgment of the. circuit court the plaintiff in. error appealed. We have examined the proof in 'this case, and think that the judgment of-the circuit court was right upon the facts but wrong upon the law. The statute of 1794 is imperative; the 63d section provides that where any person is dissatisfied with any sentence, judgment pr decree of the county court he may appeal; and the 66th section requires that the record shall be filed in the appellate court at least fifteen days before the sitting of the term suing the appeal, and that if it be not done the judgment, sentence or decree of the county court shall be affirmed.
We cannot make or alter the law. The judgment of the circuit court must therefore be reversed, and the judgment of the county court affirmed.