
    Police Jury of St. Helena v. Fluker, Adm’r.
    A motion to dismiss, after an appeal has been pending more than throe years, and since the passage of the Act of 1839, comes too late and will he overruled, to allow further time to correct errors of citation, &c. — Ante, 253 (II.), and cases there noted.
    "When none of the errors in bringing np an appeal are imputable to the appellant, ho will be allowed further time to correct such errors.
    Appeal from the conrt of probates for the parish of East Eeliciana.
    The plaintiffs having obtained a judgment against the defendant, the latter took an appeal the first January, 1838, returnable to the first Monday of -June following. The cause was decided hy the conrt of probates, for the parish of East Eeliciana, and citation and petition of appeal was served on the attorney of the appellees; they being a body corporate existing in the adjacent parish.
    
      For improper service of citation and various other causes the counsel for the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal at the February term, 1841; more than three years after it was taken.
    
      Muse, for the plaintiffs,
    insisted on the motion to dismiss.
    
      Andrews contra.
   Mastín, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The dismissal of the appeal is prayed for on account of the service of petition and citation of appeal having been made on the attorney of the appellees, although the latter are residents of the State.

2. That there was not sufficient time from the service of the process of appeal to the return day for the appellees to answer ih; it appearing that there were only eleven days allowed when they were entitled to twenty.

3. That the record is certified by the “ parish judge,” instead of the “ judge of the court of probates.”

The appeal in this case was granted the first of January, 1838, and made [466] returnable to the first Monday of June following. No motion was made to dismiss during the remainder of that year, nor in that of 1839, in whioh the remedial law in case of appeals was passed; nor during the whole of the following year. We think the appellee is too late in his objections to the appeal, and in his motion to dismiss, to prevent this court from extending to the appellant, the benefits of the Act of 1839, allowing further time to correct errors of service of citation, &c. See the case of Perkins v. Dixon, tutor, So., just decided; Session Acts of 1839, sect. 19, pp. 162, 170.

I. The appellee seeks to avail himself of an error in the service of citation and petition of appeal, on the ground that it was made on an improper person.

II. The second ground of dismissal is also an error in the service of the process of appeal.

III. The last ground stated, is an irregularity in the judge’s certificate to the record, in attesting it as parish judge, wheD he should have signed as judge of probates.

Neither of the foregoing errors or irregularities appears to be imputable to the appellant. In such a case the legislature has prohibited us from dismissing the appeal; but directs, that a reasonable time he granted to correct such errors or irregularity. Time is therefore granted until the next term of this court for this purpose.  