Shattuck v. Costello

71 P. 940, 8 Ariz. 255, 1903 Ariz. LEXIS 68
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided March 20, 1903·No. Civil No. 775·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

This canse was heard and decided at the January, 1901, term of this court. A rehearing was granted at a subsequent term. Upon the reargument, counsel for appellee for the first time called the attention of the court to the record, which discloses that the appeal-bond was not filed within the statutory period of twenty days after the term at which the judgment was rendered. An examination of the record shows the objection to be well taken. The appeal-bond was filed October 27, 1901—more than twenty days after the adjournment of the term at which the judgment was rendered. This court, therefore, is without jurisdiction.

The delay in calling the court’s attention to this matter is inexcusable, and, did the law permit, this court would be justified, under the circumstances, in regarding the delay as a waiver of the objection. This court, however, has repeatedly held that the filing of an appeal-bond within the time limited by the statutes is a jurisdictional requisite of an appeal. Putnam v. Putnam, 3 Ariz. 182, 24 Pac. 320; Ruff v. Hand, 3 Ariz. 175, 24 Pac. 257. We have no discretion in the matter, but must dismiss the appeal, and it is so ordered.

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

Shattuck v. Costello, 71 P. 940, 8 Ariz. 255, 1903 Ariz. LEXIS 68 (Ark. 1903).

71 P. 940 (Shattuck v. Costello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Knape v. Brown
342 P.2d 195 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1959)
McBroom v. Young
132 P. 300 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1913)
Dean v. Territory of Arizona
108 P. 476 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1910)