Burris v. Taylor

102 A. 984, 30 Del. 87, 7 Boyce 87, 1918 Del. LEXIS 16
CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedFebruary 4, 1918
DocketNo. 117
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 A. 984 (Burris v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burris v. Taylor, 102 A. 984, 30 Del. 87, 7 Boyce 87, 1918 Del. LEXIS 16 (Del. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Heisel, J.:

Section 4036, Code 1915, provides that in appeals from justices of the peace to this court, the appellant shall “deliver a duly certified transcript of all the docket entries in the case to the prothonotary,” etc. For this purpose appellant must obtain a transcript from the justice of the peace, which transcript, as provided in Section 3987, the justice must “certify -under his hand and seal.”

Section 3987, Id., also provides that this transcript, when so certified, shall be received as evidence in any court in this state. This is not a case of any individual so acting as to bind himself by estoppel or otherwise from denying his signature, but is a duty imposed by the statute upon a public official. We think the intent of the statute was that a justice of the peace, when certifying under his hand and seal a transcript of his docket entries, should subscribe his name in his own handwriting. This not having been done, the certificate is fatally defective and the appeal must be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Morris B. I. Co. v. Brown
72 S.W.2d 859 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A. 984, 30 Del. 87, 7 Boyce 87, 1918 Del. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burris-v-taylor-delsuperct-1918.