
    [Filed November 10, 1890.]
    L. L. CARTER, Respondent, v. D. MONNASTES, Appellant.
    Appeal prom Justice Court — Filing Transcript — Time.—Section 2125, Hill’s Code, requires tbe transeri.pt on appeal from a justice of tbe peaee to be filed in tbe circuit court on or before tbe first day of tbe term next following tbe allowance of tbe appeal. Tbis requirement is mandatory, and tbe circuit court bas no authority to extend or enlarge tbe time.
    Appeal from Multnomah county: E.D.Shattuck, judge.
    Tbe plaintiff recovered a judgment before tbe justice of tbe peace of North Portland precinct on tbe twelfth day of December, 1889. Within tbe time allowed by law the defendant served a notice of appeal from tbe judgment, gave a proper undertaking, and tbe justice allowed tbe appeal in bis docket. Thereafter, on tbe first day of January, 1890, of tbe circuit court of Multnomah county, tbe appellant appeared in court and obtained an ex parte order of said court allowing tbe appellant ten days in which to file tbe transcript. Tbe transcript was filed within tbe ten days allowed, by tbe court, but not by tbe first day of tbe term. Thereafter tbe respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for tbe reason tbe transcript bad not been filed in tbe appellate court within tbe time allowed by law, which motion was allowed and tbe appeal dismissed. Tbe appellant in tbe court below appeals.
    
      Johnson & Idleman. Lor Appellant.
    
      John Ditdhburn, for Respondent.
   Strahan, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

But a single question is presented by this appeal, and that is, whether or not the circuit court had power to make the order enlarging the time for filing the transcript. Hill’s Code, § 2125, provides: “On or before the first day of the term of the circuit court next following the allowance of the appeal, the appellant must file with the clerk of such circuit court a transcript of the cause,” etc. The requirement is imperative, and a compliance with the statute was essential to give the circuit court jurisdiction of the cause. No doubt, as appears from the transcript, the appellant was hindered in the prosecution of the appeal by circumstances over which he had no control; and if the circuit court had the power, its order enlarging the time was proper, but no provision of the statute conferring such power has been brought to our notice, and we know of none. 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 621.

We think the circuit court did not err in dismissing the appeal, and its judgment must be affirmed.  