
    Andrew Robin, plaintiff in error, vs. Nobles and Mitchel, defendants in error.
    Note. — Warner, O. J., did not preside in this case.
    
      Certiorari from, a decision of a County-Judge, must be sued out within ten days from the decision, and not afterwards, that being the time prescribed therefor in the act organizing the County-Courts.
    The decisions of possessory-warrants form no exception to this rule.
    Motion to dismiss certiorari. Decided by Judge Underwood, Eloyd Superior Court, Adjourned Term, April, 1867.
    Eobin sued out a possessory-warrant against Nobles & Mitchel to get possession of a steam engine. It was tried before D. W. Hood, County-Judge, on the 29th of September, 1866. He ordered that plaintiff pay the costs, and that the engine be delivered to the defendants upon their giving bond as required by law.
    To this decision Eobin excepted, and sued out his certiorari on the 10th of November, 1866.
    Upon motion of attorneys for Nobles & Mitchel, the Judge of the Superior Court dismissed the certiorari, because it was sued ont more than ten days after the decision of the County-Judge. This ruling is brought up for review.
    Wright and Broyles, attorneys for plaintiff in error,
    Contended that the 31st section of the County-Court Act did not cover certiorari from decisions in possessory-warrants; that sections 3960 to 3967, inclusive, was the law applicable to such cases; that said 31st section is not applicable to decisions made at Chambers. R. M. Charlton’s E., 547 ; Livingston vs. Livingston, 24th Geo. R., 379; 34th Geo. R., 91; Taylor vs. Gay. 20th Geo. R., 77. And if wrong in those positions, still certiorari might be sued out otherwise than in accordance with said 31st section. R. M. Charlton’s R., 543; 2 Chit. Gen. Prac., 219, 374, 375; 27th Geo. R., 67; 23d Geo., 360; 22d Geo., 95; Sedgwick on Stat. and Cons. Law, 39, 40, 93, 402; Bac. Abr. Certiorari (D); 2 Bou. Dic., 461.
    
      D. S. Printup, for defendant in error.
   Harris, J.

There seems to be some discrepancy in the several acts of the Legislature touching the issue and service of certiorari. Uniformity would probably have been better, but that is matter of Legislative will. We have no power to disregard a plain provision of law, definite and unambiguous, and furnishing no opening for construction, so as to reconcile apparently contradictory provisions. It is enough to say that when a certiorari is sued out on the decision of the right of possession under a possessory-warrant by a County-Judge, it must be sued out within the time prescribed by the act creating the County-Courts, and not otherwise; that by failure to conform to those aets the party here has lost the benefit which the law allowed him upon compliance with its provisions. /

Judgment affirmed.  