DELANY VS. ,PENNY WIT. 675 ARK.] DELANY VS. PENNYWIT. A writ of error executed after its return day, gives this court no jurisdiction of the
cause, and the case will be dismissed. On motion to dismiss writ of error. Hempstead & Johnson, for plaintiff
676 .uELANY VS. PENNYWIT. • [5 Trapna11 & Cadre, contra, and for the motion. By the court, RINGO C. J. At a former day of the present term, a motion was made. to dismiss the writ of error in this case, ou the ground that the same was returnable to the January term, 184, and not to the present term of this court. The writ bears date. the 1.Gth day of December, 1843, and is returnable "on the first day of the next term of said supreme court, which will be held on the first Mon-day of January, A. D. 1843, at" &c. By the return thereon endorsed, it appears to have been executed on the 29th day of june. 1844. In the view which we take of this subject, two questions are presented by the record. First, Is this a legal or valid execution of the writ? Second, If it is not, has this court thereby acquired jurisdiction of the cause, se As to adjudicate it upon the writ? It has been acljudged by tbis court, in the case of Featherston against Wilson, 3 Ark. Rep. 387, that a writ of error must be made returnable to the first day of some term of this court, that being the only general return day of the court known to law, and that there must be fifteen days between the date and the return day of the writ. And it is believed to be a general, if not a uniy ersal rule of law, that every legal process must he executed on or before the return day thereof. This principal is too familiar and too well established to demand the citation of authority to prove it. And it is equally well, settled, that any subsequent execution thereof, is wholly illegal and absolutely .void, which is indeed but the necessary consequence of the former rule; because the authority of the writ was determined before the act thereby authorized and required to be done, was done. Therefore, as the writ of error is the leaal instrument by means of whiCh, and which only, this court can acquire jurisdiction of this case to adjudicate it, inasmuch as there is no le o -al execution thereof, it must, in our opinion, follow as a necessary consequence, that this court is not by virtue of said writ, invested with jurisdiction of the case therein mentioned, because no transcript of the record thereof is thereby or therewith le[r . ally returned, and brought into this court; cense-quently, the motion must be sw,tained. Writ of error dismissed.
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.