Hall v. Bewley

• Decision Date: 30 September 1849
• Citation: 30 Tenn. 106
• Parties: HALL v. BEWLEY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

30 Tenn. 106

HALL

v.BEWLEY.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1849.

Patterson, for plaintiff in error; Barton & Maxwell, for the defendant in error.

CROZIER, special J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The record in this case shows that the plaintiff had recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace, in Greene county, against the defendant. The defendant gave bond and security for the prosecution of an appeal from the judgment of the justice to the circuit court. The papers in the case were transferred to the circuit court, and a trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a rule for a new trial, which was discharged by court, and he thereupon prayed an appeal to this court, which was granted, and he gave bond and security for the prosecution of the same. At this stage of the proceedings, and before the term of the court had expired, the defendant's counsel discovered that the papers in the case did not show (other than the recital in the appeal bond) that an appeal had been prayed and granted, and moved the court to set aside the order for the appeal, and to reinstate the plaintiff's rule for a new trial which had been discharged, which was ordered to be done, and the rule for a new trial was continued over until the next term of the court. At the following term, the rule for a new trial was made absolute, and, thereupon, the defendant's counsel asked leave to amend the proceedings, so as to show that an appeal had been prayed from the judgment of the justice, which amendment was allowed. Another trial was had in the circuit court, a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, and an appeal to this court.

It is insisted on behalf of the plaintiff, that the court erred in setting aside the first order granting to the plaintiff an appeal to this court, and reinstating and making absolute the rule for a new trial. In this we think there is no error. In order to give the circuit court jurisdiction of the case, it was necessary that the papers from before the justice should show that an appeal had been prayed and granted from his judgment, the mere recital in the appeal bond not being sufficient for this purpose. The absence of such an entry by the justice, made the whole of the subsequent proceedings in the circuit court absolutely null and void, and as the circuit judge had control of the record during the term the proceedings took place, he very...