SAMUEL RUSSEL v. JOSE M. ARMADOR

SAMUEL RUSSEL v. JOSE M. ARMADOR. Upon the trial of an issue of fact by the Court, the statement of facts must be made out and filed, as required by the 180th section of the Practice Act, or the appeal will be dismissed. This law is not merely directory, and the Court will not destroy or impair its efficacy. The intention of the act is, that the decision of the Court upon the facts shall form the basis of the judgment in like manner as the verdict of a jury. This was an appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal. 1st. Because no statement as is required by the 338th section of the act entitled an “Act to regulate proceedings in civil cases in Courts of justice of this State,” passed April 29th, 1851, has ever been , filed by the appellant in the causó. 2d. Because no abstract of the case has ever been furnished to the Court. 3d. Because the transcript is uncertain, &c.; and 4. Because the undertaking is insufficient. W. Olaude Jones, for respondent. [MAJORITY — Justice Heydenfeldt.] The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Heydenfeldt. Section 180, chap. 5 of the Practice Act prescribes, that “upon the trial of an issue of fact by the Court, its decisions shall be given in writing, and filed with the clerk within ten days after the trial took place. In giving the decision, the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated. Judgment upon the decision shall be executed accordingly.” We are of opinion that this law is not merely directory, and we have no right to destroy or impair its efficacy. It is intended by it, that the decision of the Court shall be the basis of the judgment in the same manner as the verdict of a jury; and it follows, that without such decisión the judgment cannot stand. ' This cause is therefore reversed; and remanded for a new trial, with costs.