MARTHA DAVIES, administratrix of the estate of ALSON K. STARKS, Appellant, v. SAMUEL B. PUO, A. WILLIAM RAMBLE, and CHARLES CAINE, JR., administrators of the Estate of JACOB PUO, Appellees.

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO THE MONTHLY AND PROBATE COURT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY, DIRECTING IT TO RESUME JURISDICTION AND ENFORCE ITS JUDGMENT. Argued April 28, 1970. Decided June 12, 1970. 1. An appellee is required to bring a motion in the appellate court to dismiss the appeal when the appellant has failed to timely perfect his appeal, and he may not in such a case apply to the appellate court for an order directing the lower court to resume jurisdiction in the case and enforce its judgment. Civil Procedure Law, L. 1963-64, ch. III, � 5116. Appellant had neglected to perfect his appeal although 169 days had elapsed since rendition of final judgment. Appellees applied to the Supreme Court for an order to direct the trial court to resume jurisdiction in the case and enforce its judgment. The application was denied, without prejudice to the rights of appellees to pursue the proper remedy by way of a motion before the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. No appearance for appellant. appellees. MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS Nete-Sie Brownell for delivered the opinion of the Court. Samuel B. Puo, A. William Ramble, and Charles Caine, Jr., administrators of the estate of Jacob Puo, the appellees herein, filed an application moving this Court to order the court below to resume jurisdiction and en84 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 85 force its judgment in the above-entitled cause, on the ground that more than 169 days had elapsed since rendition of final judgment and the record in the appeal had not been forwarded to this Court from the Monthly and Probate Court, Montserrado County. This Court, in many opinions, has held that where an appellant has not perfected an appeal within the prescribed period of time, the Supreme Court will order the court below to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment. In Baker v. Morris, io LLR 187 (1949), this Court stated that where defendant excepts to an adverse judgment, prays an appeal, and files an approved bill of exceptions and a legal appeal bond, thus depriving the lower court of its jurisdiction, but defendant does not have the record sent to the appellate court, the appellate court will grant a petition by the successful party below to have the judgment of the lower court enforced. To the same effect, Freeman v. Sayon, 12 LLR 294 (1956). However, the new Civil Procedure Law, which took effect December 6, 1968, makes no provision whatsoever for this procedure. It provides that when an appellant neglects to file a bill of exceptions within the statutory time, the appellee may file .a motion before the trial court to dismiss the appeal, and it may be dismissed on motion by the appellate court after the filing of the bill of exceptions for failure of the appellant to appear on the hearing of the appeal, to file an appeal bond, or to serve notice of the completion of the appeal as required by statute. Civil Procedure Law, L. 1963-64, ch. III, � 5116. Since the new Civil Procedure Law governs this appeal, it is obvious the appellees should have moved to dismiss, and not moved to have the lower court ordered to resume jurisdiction and enforce its judgment. We find ourselves unable to grant the application. The application is herby denied without prejudice to the appellees to pursue the appropriate course. 86 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below informing it of this judgment. Costs in these proceedings are to abide final determination of this matter. And it is hereby so ordered. Motion denied, without prejudice.