Memphis & Charleston R.R. Co. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 30 April 1886 |
| Citation | 84 Tenn. 387 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
| Parties | Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company et al. v. Ed. Johnson. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM SHELBY.
Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of Shelby County. J. O. PIERCE, J.
POSTON & POSTON for Railroad Company.
B. B. BARNES for Johnson.
By the act of 1885, chapter 65, section 1, it is provided, “that hereafter when an appeal, or an appeal in the nature of a writ of error, is prayed from a judgment or decree of an inferior court to the Supreme Court, the appeal shall be prayed for and appeal bond shall be executed, or the pauper oath taken within thirty days from the judgment or decree, if the court holds so long, otherwise before the adjournment of the court, but for satisfactory reasons shown by affidavit, or otherwise, and upon application made within thirty days, the court may extend the time to give bond or take the oath in term or after adjournment, but in no case more than thirty days additional.”
By section 2 of said act, it is provided, “that in all cases where the appeal has not been prayed for within the time prescribed by the first section of this act, the judgment or decree may be executed.” And by section 3 the act was made to take effect from and after its passage.
On September 29, 1885, the defendant in error, Johnson, recovered a judgment against the plaintiffs in error, in the circuit court of Shelby county, for $1,200, said cause having been tried by the court without the intervention of a jury.
On October 13, 1885, the plaintiffs in error tendered their bill of exceptions, which was signed and sealed by the court, and made part of the record in the cause. But, so far as this record shows, no appeal was either prayed or granted, and no appeal bond was executed or oath taken, and on November 2, 1885, the plaintiff below, Johnson, caused execution to be issued upon said judgment and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Shelby county, the term of the court having still continued.
On October 3, 1885, “it being shown to the court,” as the record recites, “that, by inadvertence of defendants' counsel, their appeal was not perfected within the thirty days required by the act of 1885, it was ordered that said judgment, rendered herein September 29, 1885, be set aside and for naught held, and that said judgment be and the same is now rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and his damage assessed at $1,200.” And formal judgment was thereupon rendered against said defendant company for said sum, and execution awarded. The court also made an order quashing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCanless v. State ex rel. Hamm
... ... This is recognized ... in Memphis & Charleston R. Co. v. Johnson, 84 Tenn ... Chancellor ... ...
-
McCanless v. State
...appeal, although the appeal has been perfected by the execution of an appeal bond or otherwise. This is recognized in Memphis & Charleston R. Co. v. Johnson, 84 Tenn. 387. Chancellor Gibson states the rule "But at all times during the term, if within thirty days after its entry, the decree ......
-
In re Big Bend Drainage District Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Big Bend Drainage District
...v. Bank, 25 Wyo. 260; Bank of Monroe v. Wider, 11 Paige, 529; Humphrey v. Chamberlin, 11 N.Y. 275; Wait v. Van Allen, 22 N.Y. 322; Memphis R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 16 (Tenn.) 387; Mount v. Van Ness, 34 N.J. Eq. 523; Weed v. Lyons, Walk (Mich.) 77; Whitney v. Townsend, 7 Hun. (N. Y.) 233, 67 N.......
-
Jerkins v. McKinney
...the same for the purpose of allowing an appeal. Wright v. Dorman, 155 Tenn. 189, 291 S.W.2d 1064 (1927); Memphis & Charleston Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 84 Tenn. 387 (1886). With this general statement of the law, we are in accord; however, the rigidity of this rule was substantially relaxed ......