
    S. J. Trice vs. J. M. C. Jones.
    1. Appeal prom Justice’s Court : Affidavit. Form of certificate.
    
    An affidavit for an appeal from the'judgment of a justice of the peace which) contains in the certificate of the justice the words “Given under my hand and seal,” instead of the usual and stereotyped formula “ Sworn to and subscribed before me,” is sufficient.
    Error to the Circuit Court of Wayne County.
    Hon. Wm. M. HANCOCK, Judge.
    The only facts necessary to a full understanding of this case are stated in the opinion of the court.
    The errors assigned are as follows :
    1. Because the court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s appeal.
    2. Because the court erred in holding that plaintiff’s affidavit for an appeal was not made in due form of law.
    
      J. D. Freeman, M. E. Morris, and 8. II. Terrell, for. plaintiff in error:
    This was an action of replevin under the Code, 1871, § 1530. Judgment for plaintiff for $25 damages and costs. Affidavit for appeal to the circuit court. As to the sufficiency of the1 affidavit, see Reders v. Wofford, 4 S. & M., 569 ; Brooks v.. Smeed, 50 Miss., 416; Broom’s Legal Maxims, p. 428 y De Ford v. Furnis, 43 Miss., 134 ; 4 S. & M., 580, 581; see-Code of 1871, § 1529 ; Lewis v. Farish & Stamps, 1 How. (Miss.), 547.
   Campbell J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Trice sued Jones in replevin for a mule, before a justice of the peace, and on trial Jones obtained judgment against Trice' for $25 damages, from which Trice appealed to the. circuit court. This appeal was dismissed, on motion of Jones, for want of such an affidavit as the statute requires, and Trice prosecuted a writ of error to the judgment dismissing his appeal. An inspection of the affidavit made by Trice for his appeal shows nothing unusual in it except that instead of the stereotyped formula, “ Sworn to and subscribed before me,” tbe justice certified the making of the affidavit by these words,., viz., “ Given under my hand and seal,” etc.

To sustain such an objection would justly bring judicial proceedings into contempt, and we cannot suppose that it was-on this ground that the motion to dismiss the appeal was sustained. The affidavit conforms to the statute, and we fail to' discover why it was held insufficient, and, if insufficient, why it - was not permitted to be amended.

The judgment dismissing said appeal will be reversed, and. ,the case remanded to be tried in the circuit' court as though, no dismissal of the appeal'had occurred.  