
    Shelton v. Wade.
    The law regulating appeals is intended to afford the appellant every facility consistent with a due regard to the- rights of the appellee; and it should be so construed as to attain that object.
    Where an appeal bond is objected to merely for informality or insufficiency, it is within the discretion of the court to refuse to dismiss tho appeal if the appellant will perfect tho bond. (Note 29.)
    It is not necessary that an appeal bond be signed by the appellant. (Note 30.)
    Where an appeal bond was for too small an amount, the appellant was permitted to file a now bond.
    
      It seems that the approval of an appeal bond by the olerk of the District Court is conclusive only as to the sufficiency of the sureties.
    Appeal from Fort Bend. This ease was tried at the Fall Term, 1848, of the District Court. There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The record was filed in this court oil tho 20th clay of December, 1848, and not within the first three days of the term. 'Upon tho liling of Ihe record the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, upon the following grounds:
    Note 29.—Hollis v. Border, 10 T., 277; Smith v. Cheatham, 12 T., 37; Scranton v. Bell, 35 T., 413; Long v. Smith, 30 T., 160; King v. Hopkins, 42 T., 48.
    Note 30.—Lindsay v. Price, 33 T., 280; McKellar v. Peck, 39 T., 381.
    1st. Because the record was not filed within the time prescribed by law.
    2d. For want of a sufficient append bond.
    The objections taken to the bond were, 1st. That it was not signed by the party appellant, but by his attorney, whose authority to sign for his principal d'.-s not appear. 2d. That there arc blanks in the bond. 3d. That it is not i s sufficient amount.
    In answer 10 the first ground in support of the motion to dismiss, tiie appellant filed ;sn affidavit accounting for the delay i.: filing tiie record. In answer to the.•eond ground embraced in the motion, upon aft intimation from the eonrt that the. bond might he. deemed insufficient in amount, under (he authority of the decision of this court in Bose & Scott v. Allen, (1 Tes. B., 310,) it being for (he. stun of $100 only, and it appearing that the costs exceeded that sunt, tiie appellant asked leave to file a new anil sufficient bond. The case was continued; and the appellant now presents with the transcript a certified copy of a new appeal bond, the original of which appears to have been filed and approved by the clerk of the District Court. This bond is in the sum of $300, purports to he signed like tiie first, by the appellant “ by his agent and attorney, John W. Harris,” with two sureties, and is in other respects complete.
    
      J [arris & Pease, for appellant.
    
      Manger, for appellee.
   Wiieeluu, -T.

The affidavit of the appellant is regarded as having sufficiently accounted for the delay in filing the record ; and it was so considered and determined by tlic court at the last term. It therefore only remains to determine whether the appeal ought to tie dismissed for tiie want of a sufficient appeal bond. It is believed to be the settled practice to hold it within tiie discretion of the court to refuse to dismiss an appeal on account of the mere informant!/ or insufficiency of tiie appeal bond, where the appellant will immediately give, a good and sufficient bond. Ami it was so held by the Supreme Court of' the Bepublie in the case of Crosby v. Huston. We see no objection to the exercise, of this discretion. The Constitution guaranties the right of appeal. The laws regulating the exercise of the right are intended to afford the party every possible facility in its furtherance consistent with a due regard to the rights of the opposite parly; and they should be so construed as most certainly and effectually to attain this object. It is difficult to conceive of any just cause wllicit tiie appellant can have to complain when ho lias already been secured by a sufficient bond. His security in this respect would seem to be his only proper concern. To dismiss the appeal for the want of a sufficient bond, when one amply sufficient lm,i! been ¡viven, would he to drive a party to bis writ of error, and tlms to increase the delay and expense of litigation, without securing any ultimate advantage, to the. party.

Tiie objection to the bond for the want of the signature of the appellant cannot be maintained. It was not necessary that the principal should have signed; the execution of the bond by the sureties was sufficient; tiie principal being as effectually bound by tlvc judgment, without signing the bond, as lie conlil liave been by it. This lias been repeatedly decided. (Hart. Ky. R., 149 ; 3 J. J. Marsh. R., 370; 1 Blackf. R., 51.)

We are of opinion that the motion to dismiss he overruled.

Ordered accordingly.  