Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 Miss. 528

James v. Woods

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1888

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1888-10-15

Hon. C. H. Campbell, Judge. On the 4th of April, 1888, A. A. Woods brought an action against Peter James, before a justice of the peace, upon a demand for $143.50. The defendant was summoned to appear on the 14th day of that month. He did not appear at that time, but sent by his son who did attend, an appeal bond and a petition for an appeal to the Circuit Court.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is not perceived that the irregularity of the appeal bond, being executed and approved before the judgment appealed from was rendered, vitiated the bond. The bond had the effect which one regularly executed and approved would have had, and it was available to protect appellee for all the purposes contemplated by law in such case.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Moller-Vonderboom Lumber Co. v. Board of Sup'rs

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1961

5 state decisions

20188818901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Arnoxíd, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2Appellant had given an appeal-bond with security, approved by the justice of the peace, and should have been allowed to give a new bond, as he offered to do, if the bond given had been defective in any respect. Code, Sec. 2353; Gaddis v. Palmer, 60 Miss., 758.

¶3But it not perceived that the irregularity of the appeal-bond, being executed and approved before the judgment appealed from was rendered, vitiated the bond. The bond had the effect which one regularly executed and approved would have had, and it was available to protect appellee for all the purposes contemplated by law in such case.

¶4If it be insisted here, as it was done on the motion to dismiss in the Circuit Court, that the judgment in the justice’s court was by confession, and therefore could not be appealed from, it is sufficient to say that the statute which denies appeals from judgments by consent or confession, does not apply to justice’s courts. Code, Sec. 2309.

¶5Reversed and remanded.

/65/miss/528 · .json · Public domain