
    CASE 59 — APPEAL—
    SEPTEMBER 19.
    Olmstead, &c., vs. Mason, &c.
    APPEAL FROM J3SFFERSON COROT OF COMMON PLEAS.
    1. The dismission of the appeal by the court of'common pleas, per se, deprived that court of jurisdiction over the case, and remitted it to the magistrate whose judgment had been appealed from.
    2. After dismissing an appeal from the judgment of a magistrate, the court of common pleas properly overruled a motion for judgment confirming the judgment appealed from.
    3. Having dismissed the appeal from the judgment of the magistrate, the court of common pleas properly refused a writ of prohibition against an enforcement of the judgment by the justice who rendered it.
    Isaac R. Greene, For Appellants,
    CTTED—
    
      Civil Code, secs. 849, 853.
    
      Myers' Code, pp. 711, 712.
    Bristow & Wharton, For Appellees,
    CITED—
    
      Civil Code, sec. 853.
    2 Marshall, 460; Bledsoe vs. Cassady.
    6 Mon., 34-5; Sutcr vs. Cardwell.
    
    
      Ú J. J. Mar., 137-8; Miles ns. Reed.
    4 J. J. Mar., 366; Field vs. O’Brien.
    
    5 Dana, 21; Arnold vs. Shields.
   JUDGE ROBERTSON

delivered the opinion of th® court'.

The dismission of the .appeal by the court of common pleas, per se, deprived that court of jurisdiction over the case, aad remitted it to the magistrate whose judgment had been appealed from. Consequently, after that dismission and remission, the court of common pleas properly overruled the appellants’ subsequent motion for judgment confirming that appealed from, and also in refusing a writ of prohibition against an enforcement of the judgment by the justice who rendered it.

"Wherefore, that judgment by the court of common pleas is affirmed.  