
    No. 2307.
    W. B. Figures v. Dunklin & Hughes.
    1. Final Judgment—Justice’s Court.—On a verdict rendered in a suit on account in a justice’s court the following verdict was rendered: “We, the jury, find for the defendant, and adjudged that the costs of this suit be paid by plaintiff.” On that verdict a judgment was rendered that “the defendant do have and recover of and from the plaintiffs the sum of ten dollars and fifty-six cents, the costs in this suit incurred.” Held, since there was no final judgment disposing of the matter in controversy, the right of appeal did not exist.
    2. Appeal Bond.—An appeal bond, given to remove a cause from a justice’s court, which fails to provide that the appellant shall prosecute his appeal to effect, is fatally defective.
    Appear from Marion Tried below before the Hon. W. P. McLean.
    
      Opinion delivered October 21, 1887.
    The syllabus states the character of the action and the verdict.
    
      W. B. Figures and George T. Todd, for appellant.
    
      C. A. Culberson, for appellee.
   Stayton, Associate Justice.

This case was brought to the district court on appeal, and on motion in that court, was dismissed. The grounds of the motion were:

1. That there was no final judgment rendered in the justice’s court.

2. That the appeal bond was not conditioned as required by "the statute.

There was a verdict in the justice’s court on which a final judgment might have been entered, but the only judgment entered was one reciting that the verdict was for the defendant for costs and then declaring that “it is considered and adjudged by the court that the defendant do have and recover of and from "the plaintiff the sum of ten dollars and fifty-six cents ($10.56) the •costs in this suit incurred.” This was not a final .judgment. While mere informalities in the proceedings in justice’s courts will not vitiate their proceedings, it is true of that court as of all •others, that its judgment to authorize an appeal must dispose of the matter in controversy between the parties. This the judgment entered in the justice’s court did not.

The bond is not conditioned “that the appellant shall prosecute his appeal to effect,” as required by the statute. (Revised Statutes, 1639.)

There is no error in this judgment, and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.  