
    Order.
    Case et al. vs. Myers.
    [Mr. Apperson for plaintiff: no appearance for defendant.]
    From Montgomery County Court.
    
      May 1.
    Notice to owners of land through whicharoadisto pass, is indispensable to give validity to the order of court for opening it.
    
      Road cases may still be taken (by appeal or w. e.) upon matters of law only, direct ly to the Court of Appeals,, from the county court to the act of ’30, allowing appeals to the circuit courts, to re try the facts fy law, being merely cujnulative.
   Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

As the County Court obviously erred in this case, in ordering the opening of a road through the lands of the plaintiffs in error, without any notice to, or appearance by them, or any of them — the only question we shall consider, is, whether the writ of error, as now brought, upon a matter of law, will lie to this Court, without any appeal first to the Circuit Court.

The general jurisdiction of this Court certainly embraced this case prior to the enactment of the statute of 1796, which authorized the assignment of “errors upon matters of fact, as well as upon matters of law;” and therefore, the subsequent statute of 1830, repealing so much of the act of 1796 as gave this Court jurisdiction over both errors in fact and in law in road cases, and authorizing appeals and writs of error to the Circuit Court to revise both kinds o(f errors, and also restricting appeals and writs of error, from the Circuit Courts to this Court, to the revision of errors in law only — should, in our opinion, be understood as not abolishing the pre-established and general jurisdiction of this Court, over matters of law alone, upon appeals or writs of error immediately to revise the orders of the County Courts; but as being, in that respect, merely cumulative.

Wherefore, the order in this case is set aside, and the case remanded.  