
    M. H. McKIENAVY v. J. H. PICKARD ET AL.
    Jackson,
    September Term, 1875.
    1. PAUPER OATH. By husband sufficient for appeal by him and wife.
    Where an appeal is granted a husband and wife, on their filing the pauper oath in lieu of a bond for costs, the appeal is perfected upon the required oath being taken by the husband alone.
    Cited with approval: Grills v. Hill, 2 Sneed, 711; McPhatridge v. Gregg, 4 Cold., 324.
    2. SAME. Affidavit of right of redress necessary.
    Where the pauper oath in lieu of an appeal bond for costs fails to follow the requirements of the statute, in the essential particular that affiant is justly entitled to the redress sought, etc., which is expressly required to entitle a party to an appeal without bond and security for costs, the appeal will he dismissed for the defect. [See Code, sec. 4928.]
   Nicholson, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

.lit the April term of the chancery court, 1875, at Memphis, complainant obtained a decree against defendants, from which they prayed for an appeal, which was granted to defendant Pickard and wife, on their filing the pauper oath in lieu of a bond for costs.

The pauper oath was taken by defendant J. IT. Pickard alone, and it is now moved to dismiss the appeal because his wife did not join in the affidavit.

It was decided in Grills v. Hill, 2 Sneed, 711, and McPhatridge v. Gregg, 4 Cold., 324, that the appeal in-such cases is properly granted upon the affidavit of the husband alone.

But the affidavit fails to follow the requirements of the Code- in one essential particular. It fails to state that the affiant is justv entitled to the redress sought, etc. This is material, and is expressly required, to entitle a party to an appeal without bond and security for costs.

For this defect the appeal is dismissed.  