212 SUPREME COITRT OF ARKANSAS, [35 Ark. Guy, McClellan & Co. vs. Walker & Johnson. GITY, MCCLELLAN & CO. vs. ' WALKER & TOHNSON. APPEAL FROM JUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Justice compelled to perfect record. If a justice of the peace omits to sign his name to _the jurat to an affidavit for an appeal to the circuit court, he may be It by rule of court. — c ompelled to sign
35 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1879. 213 Guy, McClellan & Co. vs. Walker & Johnson. APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. Hon. W. D. JACOWAY, Circuit Judge. Feilder, for appellant. Mansfield, contra. HARRISON, J. Guy, McClellan & Co. brought an action of replevin against Walker, Johnson & Co., before a justice of the peace for five bales of cotton. No return to the order of delivery was made by the constable, and it does not appear that the cotton was delivered to the plaintiffs, or ever taken from defendants; but the defendants, upon the trial, recovered judgment against the plaintiffs for $198.43. The plaintiffs prayed an appeal. The defendants moved, in the circuit court, ta dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that no affidavit for an appeal had been made. The only paper, in any wise purporting to be such an affidavit, was the following: "Gu y , MCCLELLAN & Co., plaintiffs, .1 VS. Affidavit far appeal. WALKER, JOHNSON '& CO., defendants. "We, Guy, McClellan & Co., do solemnly swear that the appeal taken by us in the above entitled cause is not taken for the purpose of delay, ba that justice may be done. "GUY, MCCLELLAN & CO., "Poston." "Sworn and subscribed before me, this the twenty-fourth day of May, 1878." The court dismissed the appeal, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
214 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [35 Ark. If the oath was in fact made, and the justice or officer ad-Appeal ' ministering it, omitted to sign the jurat, he from I. P.: Justice might have been, at the instance of the plain-compelled to perfect tiffs, if the paper was otherwise sufficient as an record. affidavit, compelled to 'sign It, by a rule of the court against him; but that was not done, and, without the signature of the officer, there was no authentication of the fact that the declaration contained in the paper was made under oath. But if the signature had been attached, we doubt if the paper could, by the most liberal construction, be held to be the affidavit of any one. n t hnr gr ,sss oppenr tinn onn.n, 10 1.1011 TIPPA nr4
be stated. The court did not err in dismissing the appeal. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.