Jackson v. Gordon

• Decision Date: 15 February 1943
• Docket Number: 35266.
• Citation: 194 Miss. 268,11 So.2d 901
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JACKSON et al. v. GORDON.

11 So.2d 901

194 Miss. 268

JACKSON et al. v. GORDON.

No. 35266.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 15, 1943

Hugh F. Causey, John T. Smith, and W. D. Jones, all of Cleveland for appellants.

Breland & Lowrey and V. J. Brocato, all of Clarksdale, for appellee.

GRIFFITH Justice.

The spring term of the Circuit Court of the second district of Bolivar County is fixed by law as beginning on the first Monday in April, and to continue for twenty-four days. The legal term for the spring of 1942 began, therefore, on Monday, April 6, 1942, and continued until Saturday, May 2 1942. The court convened for the said term at the appointed time, and continued in session throughout the four weeks. But the presiding judge did not sign the minutes day by day throughout the term, nor did he sign the minutes on the last day of the term.

On April 29, 1942, during the lawful term, the judge made and signed an order extending the term for a further week, or until May 9, but as already mentioned he did not sign the minutes covering said order. The court, nevertheless continued in session to and throughout May 9, 1942, on which day the judge made and signed another order, further extending the term until May 23, 1942. The court continued in session until May 18, 1942, on which day the presiding judge for the first time signed the minutes.

The case now before us on this appeal was tried during the regular term, and on the minute book there is a final judgment said to have been rendered on April 17, 1942, but which has never been authenticated and made a legal judgment for the reason, already mentioned, that the judge did not sign the minutes during or on the last day of the term. And not having signed the minutes, the orders extending the term were of no validity, with the result that when the judge did sign on May 18, 1942, he did so at a time which in legal effect was in vacation.

The law governing such a situation is sufficiently announced in Watson v. State, 166 Miss. 194, 146 So. 122, and Williams v. State, 179 Miss. 419, 174 So. 581. Applying what was said in those cases to the facts presented by the present record, no final judgment, valid in law, has ever been entered in the case at bar, and it stands on the docket of the Circuit Court as a pending and untried case. From which it further follows that inasmuch as appeals to this court from the Circuit Court can be taken only from final judgments, Sec. 13, Code...