majority"> MekrimoN, J.

(after stating the case). Under the strict statutory provision'applicable (The Code, §§549, 552), the appellee would be entitled to have his motion allowed for the cause assigned, as has been decided by many cases, and the appellant would lose his appeal, unless,for good cause shown, he should be allowed to brmg it into this Court by the writ of certiorari.

But the General Assembly has modified the rigor of the statute by an act passed at its present session, ratified on the 16th day of February, 1889, which, among other things, provides as follows: “ And when no undertaking on appeal has been filed, or deposit made, before the record of the case is transmitted to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, thereafter allow, on such terms as may *27 seem best (just), the appellant to file an undertaking on appeal, or make the deposit. The provisions of this act shall apply to cases now pending in the Supreme Court.” The authority thus conferred upon this Court is remedial in its nature, broad and comprehensive, and embraces pending cases, and it is to be exercised in the just discretion of.the Court. The purpose is to give it power to relieve an appellant chargeable with excusable laches, not gross neglect.

Whether the power will or will not be exercised must depend largely upon the facts and circumstances of each case It may be said, however, that in all cases the appellant must show reasonable excuse for his failure to give the undertaking promptly, as required by law, else relief will not be granted. It is no part of the purpose of the statute to excuse or encourage gross neglect.

It appears sufficiently in this case that the appellant took his appeal in good faith; that he made diligent effort, from time to time, to give the undertaking on appeal, but was prevented by causes that need not be adverted to here; that he did give the same without serious delay or prejudice to the appellee. In our judgment, reasonable excuse is shown for the delay, and the undertaking filed must be accepted and deemed sufficient, and the appeal disposed of as if the undertaking had been filed within the time prescribed by law.

Motion to dismiss refused, and appellant allowed to file undertaking.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress