
    J. P. WEBSTER & SON v. LUCAS et al.
    (No. 4755.)
    Supreme Court of Texas.
    June 22, 1927.
    1. Appeal and error <&wkey;387(3)— Nonresident of county must file appeal bond within 20 days after expiration of term, if term is less than 8 weeks (Rev. St. 1925, art. 2253).
    Appellant, even though he resides out of the county, must file his appeal bond within 20 days after expiration of the term, if the term of court at which the case is tried be less than 8 weeks, under Rev. St. 1925, art. 2253, in view of Gen. & Sp. Laws 40th Leg. (1927) c. 15, restating the law as it was before the 1925 revision.
    2. Appeal and error <&wkey;387(2) — Appeal bond must be filed within statutory time to give appellate court jurisdiction; appeals being statutory.
    Provisions of law for perfecting an appeal are purely statutory, and the time fixed by statute within which appeal bond must be filed in order to give jurisdiction to the appellate court must govern.
    3. Statutes <@=»23l— Re-enactment of law to conform to statute as it was before revision is persuasive, though not conclusive as to Legislature’s intent in revision.
    While a re-enactment or restatement of a law by a subsequent Legislature to make a statute conform to what it was before revision is not conclusive, it is persuasive as to the legislative intent in the revision.
    Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Eleventh Supreme Judicial District.
    Action between J. P. Webster & Son and L. C. Lucas and another. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained a motion to dismiss an appeal by the former from a judgment for the latter (288 S. W. 469), and J. P. Webster & Son brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Benson & Dean, of Breekenridge, for plaintiff in error.
    W. E. Whightsel, of Wichita Ealls, amicus curite.
    Butts & Wright and Eugene Lankford, all of Cisco, and B. B. Chappell, of Breckenridge, for defendants in error.
   PIERSON, J.

As stated by the honorable Court of Civil Appeals:

“This cause was tried in the district court of Callahan county, which court may by law continue in session only 4 weeks. Appellants reside in Stephens county. Judgment was rendered on November 18th, and notice of appeal given. The term adjourned November 26th. Appeal bond was filed December 24th. Appel-lees have moved to dismiss the appeal because the appeal bond was not filed within 20 days after adjournment.
“That part of article 2253, Revised Statutes 1925, which is applicable here, provides:
“ ‘Such bond or affidavit shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within twenty days after the expiration of the term or after notice of appeal is given when the term continues by law more than eight weeks, if the party taking the appeal resides in the county, and within thirty days if he resides out of the county.’ ”

The Court of Civil Appeals held that the appeal bond was filed too late under the statute, and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. A writ of error having been granted, the case is before us for disposition.

As far as we have been able to find, the Supreme Court has never passed upon the construction of this statute; but the statute, practically in its present form, has been construed in numerous decisions by the Courts of Civil Appeals, and those courts have uniformly held that, if the term of court at which the case is tried be less than 8 weeks, the appellant in a case must file his appeal bond within 20 days after the expiration of the term, whether he resides in the county or out of it. We think this holding is clearly correct, and will make only a brief statement of some of the reasons for our holding.

The question presented is not so much the justice of the rule or the wisdom of the policy involved. The provisions of law for perfecting an appeal are purely statutory, and the time fixed by statute within which the appeal bond must be filed in order to give jurisdiction to the appellate court must govern. It is a matter of ascertaining the meaning of the statute.

In Revised Statutes of 1879 the requirement in reference to the appeal bond, as provided in article 1387, reads as follows:

“ * * * And by his filing with the clerk an appeal bond, or affidavit in lieu thereof, as hereinafter provided, within twenty days after the expiration of the term.”

Revised Statutes of 1895, art. 1387, relating to the same subject, reads as follows:

“ * * * And by his filing with the clerk an appeal bond, where bond is required by law, or affidavit in lieu thereof, as hereinafter provided, within twenty days after the expiration of the term. If the term of the court may by law continue more than eight weeks, the bond, or affidavit in lieu fhereof, shall be filed within twenty days after notice of appeal is given, if the party taking the appeal resides in the county, and within thirty days if he resides out of the county.”

It will be observed that prior to 1895 the statute had been amended in reference to terms of court which may continue more than 8 weeks.

The provisions relating to the same subject in the Revised Statutes of 1911, art. 2084, are as follows:

“ * * * And by his filing with the clerk an appeal bond, where bond is required by law, or affidavit in lieu thereof, as hereinafter provided, within twenty days after the expiration of the term. If the term of the court may by law continue more than eight weeks, the bond or affidavit in lieu thereof shall be filed within twenty days after notice of appeal is given, if the party taking the appeal resides in the county, and within thirty days, if he resides out of the county.”

As stated by the honorable Court of Civil Appeals, this case was tried under the law as provided in the Revised Statutes of 1925, and a slight change in the wording of ths statute was effected by the codification committee, and said articles 1387 and 2084 were brought forward in the codification and reenacted in article 2253 in the following lan-’ guage:

“ * * * Together with an appeal bond or affidavit in lien thereof as provided by law. Such bond or affidavit shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within twenty days after the expiration of the term or after notice of appeal is given when the term continues by law more than eight weeks, if the party taking the appeal resides in the county, and within thirty days, if he resides out of the county.”

We detect no real difference in the statute as revised in the codification of 1925 from what it was in the Revised Statutes of 1911 and 1895. The sentence is somewhat shortened, but the wording is in essential respects the same.- We can find no intent therein to change the requirements in regard to the filing of -the appeal bond. It is true the change did not improve the wording of the statute.

To correct whatever confusion might have been in said article 2253 of the last revision, as was disclosed in two or three litigated cases since said revision, the Fortieth Legislature restated the law in said article 2253, using the same words as before the revision, as follows:

“ * * * And by his filing with the clerk an appeal bond, where bond is required by law, or affidavit in lieu thereof, as hereinafter provided, within twenty days after the expiration of the term. If the term of court may by law continue more than eight weeks, the bond or affidavit in lieu thereof shall be filed within twenty days after notice of appeal is given, if the party taking the appeal resides in the county, and within thirty days, if he resides out of the county.” General Laws Fortieth Legislature, p. 21, c. 15.

We do not deem it necessary or advisable to discuss the reasons of the statute,— that is, the reason why the statute should grant 30 days after adjournment of court, in terms that continue more than 8 weeks, for the filing of an appeal bond, where the appellant resides out of the county, and for not allowing 30 days to those residing out of the county where the term continues less than 8 weeks. For many years the courts have construed these requirements uniformly, as held herein. We think the Legislature in the revision of 1925 did not change it, and in the Acts of the Fortieth Legislature restated its purpose and intent that it should continue to be as it had formerly been. While a re-enactment or restatement of a law by a subsequent Legislature is not conclusive, yet it is persuasive as to the legislative intent.

Believing that the statute is reasonably clear, and concurring in the uniform construction of it, we conclude that the honorable Court of Civil Appeals properly dismissed the appeal in this case, and, accordingly, we affirm its judgment. 
      <S=»Eor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     