ROSA SIMONOVITCH, widow of SIMON SIMONOVITCH for herself and for her minor daughter, VERA, et al., Appellants, v. THE LIBERIAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, by and through its manager, I. STEINER, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued October 15, 1969. Decided January 30, 1970. 1. A motion to set aside a jury verdict and have a new trial ordered on the ground that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence, must be brought within two days after the entry of the verdict. 2. When such a motion has been tardily made, the trial court has no power to grant the motion, and in the event it should its order is null and void. 3. The reviewing court, therefore, cannot consider the appeal taken from the judgment in the case, for the effect of such tardy motion is to regard it as not having been made at all, with no basis for an appeal having been laid. The statement of facts is set forth in the body of the opinion, Judgment alfirmed. 0. Natty B. Davis, Jacob Wills and T. Gibli Collins for appellants. Morgan, Grimes and Harmon for ap- pellee. MR. CHIEF the court. JUSTICE WILSON delivered the opinion of An action of debt, first brought in 1963, arose out of an alleged contract of employment between the appellee and the late Simon Simonovich, whereby in return for obtaining business the deceased was to receive certain percentages of the total amounts involved. The widow and daughter, and other next of kin of Simonovich, later intervening, brought suit for the sum of $16o,000.00, based on the foregoing agreement, stemming from an $8,000r 418 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 419 000.00 construction contract allegedly resulting from the efforts of Simonovich. Prior to the first trial of the action, there was much procedural skirmishing, until the case was ruled to trial on a bare denial of the allegations contained in the complaint. In the March 1967 Term of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, when the first trial was held, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, which was set aside by the trial court on the motion of defendant, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, and a new trial was ordered. In the June 1967 Term trial was held for the second time, before Judge Joseph P. Findley, and a verdict this time was returned for the defendant. The plaintiffs excepted to it and notice was given of intention to appeal. The verdict was entered July 25, 1967, and a motion for a new trial was brought�on July 29, 1967. The four days between the entry of the verdict and the motion to have the verdict set aside and a new trial ordered, involves the nub of this appeal, for the trial court denied the motion on the ground that it should have been brought within two days after the verdict was entered and was, therefore, pursuant to statute, delinquent. In the circumstances, he held the motion was to be denied and final judgment entered affirming the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs have appealed from this judgment and the matter is now before us for consideration. The appellee in argument before this Court contended that this Court ought properly deny review, on the ground that a basis for an appeal had not been laid by timely bringing a motion for a new trial. It is further contended that the motion in this case not having been timely filed, no appeal, therefore, can lie and that this Court may examine the record only to ascertain: (a) the date of the verdict; (b) the date of the filing of the motion; (c) the grounds for the motion ; and (d) if discovered to be only on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that same was filed 420 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS later than 2 days after the return of the verdict, then, and in that case, this Court must refuse entertainment of the merits and/or demerits of the appeal. The pertinent statutes have been cited by the appellee : “New Trials : Grounds. “1. In jury actions. When an action has been tried by jury, a new trial may be granted to any or all of the parties on all or part of the issues on any or all of the following ,grounds : ” (a) Whenever it is proved that any juror ( 1) has received a bribe ; (2) or after being sworn or affirmed has conversed otherwise than openly in the presence of the court with any party to the action or with any agent of any party on the subject of the trial; or (3) was guilty of giving false answers to material questions when examined as to his competency to serve as a juror in the action; or “(b) If the verdict is manifestly against the evidence, the law, or the instructions of the court; or “(c) If the debt or damages found by the jury is greatly too much or too little when compared with the evidence in the case or “(d) On the basis of newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time for introduction at the trial. . . .” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:82o. “Time for motion for new trial.–A motion for a new trial shall be served not later than four days after the verdict is entered if it is based on grounds set forth in section 82o (a), or (d) and not later than two days after the verdict is entered if it is based on the grounds set forth in section 820(b) or (c). The motion shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Clerk of the court. A copy shall be served on the opposing party not less than four hours before argument on the motion to be heard. “Not later than four days after the entry of the ver- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 421 dict or the decision in a case tried without a jury, the court may on its own initiative order a new trial for any reason for which it might have granted a new trial on the motion of a party; the order shall specify the grounds therefor.” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:821. “No appeal from jury verdict.–There shall be no app’eal from any verdict of a jury on any question of mere fact except to the court in which the case was tried for the purpose of setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6 :root. It is clear that the motion for a new trial, based on the contention that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of evidence, should have been filed within two days, thereby laying a premise for an appeal to this Court. The question now arises whether or not a motion for a new trial filed outside the statutory time has any validity, and if not, what effect the late filing has on an appeal. “In most jurisdictions statutes or rules of court having the force of statutory enactments provide that an application for a new trial must be made within a certain number of days after the rendition of the verdict or decision, or within some other fixed time. The statutory provisions must be strictly complied with. Where a motion is not filed until after the time therefor has expired, the effect is the same as if no motion were filed at all. A motion filed out of time may be either stricken from the files or overruled, and the reviewing court cannot correct the errors which are grounds for a new trial.” 29 CYC. 927-9. Again, “The court is without power or jurisdiction to grant or sustain a motion for a new trial made after the time limited by stature or deny it on the merits and its order doing so is null and void.” 66 C.J.S., New Trial, � 125(3)- 422 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS Considering the foregoing authorities and the statute which provides that no appeals from any verdict of a jury from any question of mere facts may be taken except to the court in which the case was tried, for the purpose of setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, we have no alternative but to agree that the appeal in this case is wanting in a necessary prerequisite, and as much as we would like to explore the many interesting issues raised in the pleadings and the briefs on both sides, we find ourselves barred from doing so. The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the appellants and the clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below informing it of this judgment. And it is hereby so ordered. Affirmed.