
    John E. Creighton and John J. Oliver v. Abraham Harden.
    The condition of an appeal bond for the appeal of a suit in covenant from the common pleas to the district court, in June, 1852, requiring the appellant to “ pay the full amount of the condemnation in said district court, and costs, in case judgment shall be entered therein in favor of the appellee," etc., although not literally in conformity to the statute, yet substantially covering the requisite stipulations which, in any event, could have inured to the benefit of the appellee, is sufficient.
    The fourth section of the statute of March 9, 1835, amending the practice act, whereby authority was given to the appellate court, in case of a defective appeal bond, to order a new bond to be given, and also requiring exceptions to an appeal bond to be taken at the term of the court in which the appeal was entered, was not repealed by the act of March 12, 1845, to-regulate the practice of judicial courts, but was made applicable to proceedings in the courts under the new constitution, by section 6 of the amendatory act relating to the organization and the powers and duties of courts of justice, passed February 19, 1852. The opinion to this effect, expressed in the case of Hubble v. Eeqick, 1 Ohio St. 172, affirmed.
    Petition in error to reverse the judgment of tlie district court of Lucas county.
    
      The original action was covenant, brought in the court of common pleas of Putnam county, December 2,1850, by Creighton and Oliver against Harden, for an alleged breach of covenants of general warranty in a deed of conveyance of lands alleged to have been made by the defendant to the plaintiffs.
    January 6,1851, the defendant pleaded that the supposed inden ture mentioned in the declaration was not his deed.
    *At the June term, 1852, of the common pleas, the defendant obtained a verdict and judgment, and the plaintiffs gave notice of their intention to appeal to the district court, and the court fixed the amount of the appeal bond.
    On the 5th day of June, 1852, the plaintiffs filed, in the district court of Putnam county, an appeal bond in the ca'se, in the sum fixed by the court, conditioned that said Creighton and Oliver “ shall pay the full amout of the condemnation in said district court, and costs, in case a judgment shall be entered therein in favor of the appellee,” etc. -
    The bond was approved by the clerk.
    September 7, 1852, and before the term of the district court of Putnam county, next after the date of the judgment appealed from, a proper transcript was filed therein, and the cause docketed.
    At said first term of the Putnam county district court, held September 8, 1852, the cause was continued by consent of parties for want of a quorum of disinterested judges.
    At the September term, 1853, of said Putnam county district court, there not being a quorum of disinterested judges present, the cause was transferred to the district court of Lucas county, for trial and judgment, pursuant to the statute.
    On the 3d of April, 1854, the cause was docketed in'the district court of Lucas county, and at the April term of that court, begun and held on the 29th of April, 1854, the cause was continued.
    On the 5th day of the April term, 1855, of tire Lucas county district court, the defendant filed a motion “to dismiss the appeal in this case, because of the informality and insufficiency of the appeal bond.”
    At the hearing of this motion, the plaintiffs objected that it was out of time, and that the defendant had no right at that time to except to the bond; but the court overruled the objection, “and held that the bond was insufficient because its condition did not, in effect, comnly with the third section of the act regulating appeals to the-*district court, passed March 23,1852, and that exceptions to said bond could be taken at this time; to which ruling of the court the plaintiffs excepted; and thereupon the plaintiffs, on written motion, asked leave of the court to file a new bond, which should be in compliance with said act of March 23, 1852; but the court refused to grant such leave and dismissed this cause for want of jurisdictionholding that, because of the insufficiency of the appeal bond, neither the Lucas county nor the Putnam county district court had any jurisdiction. To which refusal and order of dismissal, the plaintiffs excepted.
    To reverse the order of the district court dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed their petition in error in this court; and it is claimed on behalf of the plaintiffs in error that the district court erred :
    1. In entertaining the motion to dismiss the appeal.
    2. In holding that said motion was made in time.
    3! In holding that the appeal bond was insufficient.
    4. In refusing leave to the plaintiffs to file a new bond which should comply with said act of March 23, 1852.
    5. In dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction.
    
      Hill & Pratt, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Waite, Goffinberry & Murray, for defendant in error.
   Bartley, J.,

announced the opinion of the court:

1. That the condition of an appeal bond, for the appeal of a suit in covenant, from the common pleas to the district court, in June, 1852, requiring the appellant to “pay the full amount of the condemnation in said district court, and costs, in case judgment shall be entered therein in favor of the appellee,” etc., although not literally in conformity to the statute, yet substantially covering the requisite stipulations, which in any event could have inured to the benefit of the appellee, is sufficient.

2. That the fourth section of the statute of March 9, ^lSSSj amending the practice• act, whereby authority was given to the appellate court, in case of a defective appeal bond, to order a new bond to be given, and also requiring exceptions to an appeal bond to be taken at the term of the court in which the appeal was entered, was not repealed by the act of March 12, 1845, to regulate the practice of judicial courts, but was made applicable to proceedings in the courts under the new constitution, by the sixth .■section of the amendatory act relating to the organization and the jtowers and duties of courts of justice, passed February 19, 1852. The opinion to this effect, expressed in the case of Hubble v. Renick, 1 Ohio St. 172, affirmed.

Judgment of the district court reversed and cause remanded.  