Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

176 Miss. 514

169 So 886

Pool v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 19, 1936

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1936-10-19

Relies on Wilson v. Town of Handsboro · Ingram v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1936-10-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2015

16 state decisions

80193619401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*516 Cook, J.,

¶1 delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2 Appellant, Jim Pool, was tried in a justice of the peace court on a charge of grand larceny, and a judgment was entered finding him guilty, as charged, and sentencing him to pay a fine of fifty dollars and serve ninety days in jail, from which judgment he prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. At a later term of the circuit court his appeal was dismissed with a writ of procedendo, the judgment of dismissal merely reciting that, “The appeal herein is dismissed with a writ of procedendo to the court below to enforce its judgment,” and taxing the appellant with the costs of the appeal.

¶3 This judgment does not show that the appellant was called in the circuit court and given opportunity to prosecute his appeal and present his defense before the appeal was dismissed. It is well settled that, before a court has power to disiniss an appeal and order a writ of procedendo to issue, it is necessary that the appellant be called and given an opportunity to defend. Wilson v. Town of Handsboro, 96 Miss. 376, 50 So. 982; Peacock v. State (Miss.), 95 So. 647; Ingram v. State, 136 Miss. 291, 101 So. 380.

¶4*517 It is true that the record shows, in a separate order, that the appeal bond was, at some time, forfeited and a judgment nisi entered against the appellant and the sureties on his appeal bond, hut that is not a sufficient showing that the appellant was called and given opportunity to defend before the dismissal of the appeal. As to the validity of the judgment entered in the justice of the peace court, we express no opinion.

¶5 The judgment of the court below overruling the motion to set aside the order of dismissal and reinstate the cause is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

¶6 Reversed and remanded.

/176/miss/514 · .json · Public domain