Yturbide

The claim in this case having been rejected by the board, the transcript was duly filed in the clerk’s ■office in this court on the second of June, 1855. No notice of appeal was filed by the ■claimants within six months thereafter as re•quired by law, but on the 30th of April, 1856, a motion was made by the claimants’ counsel for leave to file such notice nunc pro tunc, •and to prosecute the appeal. No order or decree dismissing the appeal had been obtained by the district attorney, and the eireumstan-■ces attending the omission to file the notice were such as to have induced the court at ■once to grant the application, if it had possessed any discretion on the subject. Much doubt was however entertained by the court whether it could on any showing disregard what' seemed the positive requirements of the statute. The motion was therefore, with the acquiescence of the district attorney, granted, in order that if the court had any discretion on the subject it might appear to have been exercised in favor of the application, and in order that testimony on the merits might be taken and the whole case submitted to the supreme court in such a form as to enable them finally to dispose of…