
    Wilson v. Holeman.
    Bond for appeal given after verdict and before judgment. Appeal dismissed.
    This case came before Judges Burnet and Sherman, at the July Term, 1826, in the county of Union.
    The cause had been brought up by appeal from the common pleas. It appeared from the record that a verdict had been rendered for the defendant, at the May term, 1821, and notice of appeal then entered. On the 4th of June, the appellant gave bond, with a condition that he would prosecute his appeal to effect, and not depart the court without leave, and would pay the amount of cost and condemnation money, if a decree or judgment should be rendered against him. Final judgment was rendered on the verdict, in the common pleas, at the July term following.
    The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it had not been taken in conformity with the statute.
   By the Court :

The right of appeal from the common pleas to this court, for the purpose of having another trial on the merits, is *given by statute, and extends only to cases in which judgments or decrees have been rendered, and the plain construction of the statute requires that the judgment or decree must be rendered before any steps are taken to perfect the appeal. The appeal is allowed from judgments and decrees.

The notice, which is the first step to be taken, must be entered on the records of the court at the term in which judgment is rendered, and bond with security must be given within thirty days after the close of that term. In this case, it appears that notice was entered and the bond executed before the term in which judgment was rendered. The bond is also defective.

It does not describe or set out the suit with sufficient precision to determine with certainty to what case it was intended to apply. As this suit, therefore, is notVithin the original jurisdiction of this court, and the steps required in order to give us appellate jurisdiction have not been taken, the appeal must be dismissed.

A motion was then made to enter judgment against the appellant for costs. This motion was overruled, on the ground that the cause was not within the jurisdiction of the court, and, consequently, that no judgment could be rendered for or against either party.

Appeal dismissed.  