Thе defendants have brought this motion to dismiss the appeal to this Court from the Orange County Court on the ground that the plaintiff failed and оmitted to file separate notices of appeal with the cleric of the Supreme Court for Orange County, and the clerk of the Orange County Court, *497 respectively, in accordance with the provisions of 12 V. S. A. §2382.
The pertinent part of 12 V. S. A. §2382, upon whiсh the motion of the defendants to dismiss is based, reads as follows:
"In any action or proceedings, civil or criminal, appealable from any court (except a justice court) commission, board, agency or department of the state or any political subdivisions thereof, appeal may be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal as hereinаfter set forth with (1) the clerk of the court appealed to and (2) the clerk or Register of the tribunal appealed frоm or the commissioner as the case may be.”
The provisions of 12 V. S. A. §2383 relative to such filing Is:
"Filing shall consist of delivery by hand or by mailing such notice of appeal to the persons specified in Section 2382 of this title.”
The record before us indicates that оne notice of appeal was received by O. Fay Allen, Jr. on Feb. 3, 1960. On the jacket of the notice of appeаl appear the words: "Filed and copies mailed, Feb. 3,1960, O. Fay Allen, Jr. Clerk.” Because of the provision of 4 V. S. A. §601 "Each county сlerk shall be clerk of the supreme and county court and court of chancery, for the county,” O. Fay Allen, Jr. is clerk of both thе Orange County Court and of this Court for Orange County. It is his duty to "make and keep dockets of the causes pending in the respectivе courts, and at each term of the court, furnish each of the justices or judges with a copy of the docket for that term.” 4 V. S. A. §602.
It is the defendants’ contention here that jurisdiction is lacking because two notices of appeal were not filed with Mr. Allen by the plaintiff in this cause, one such notice with him in his capacity as clerk of this Court for Orange County, and another, an identical notice of appeal, with Mr. Allen in his capacity as clerk of the Orange County Court. The defendants do not state in which of his twо capacities Mr. Allen did file the notice of appeal that he received, although it is interesting to note that in a lеtter from the deputy clerk of the Orange *498 county Court to the clerk of the General Term of this Court, the notice of apрeal is among the certified copies of the docket entries of the Orange County Court.
In deciding the question presentеd to us by the motion to dismiss it is necessary for us to consider the purpose of the statute as intended by the legislature. In the interpretation of statutes the fundamental rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, and, if it can be fаirly done, a statute must be construed to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended, and should not be construed so striсtly as to defeat its purpose.
State
v.
Severance,
There can be no doubt that it was the legislative intent that notice of appeal should be filed with the proper offiсer of the court or body from whom the appeal is taken, as well as with the designated officer of the reviewing tribunal. Nor сan it be doubted that when one person is the clerk of the tribunal appealed from, while another and different person is the clerk of the court of review, that a notice of appeal is required to be filed with each of these two persons. See
Parker
v.
Weaver,
The filing of the notice of appeal, under 12 V. S. A. §2382, is accomplished by delivery to the "persons specified.” The ordinary and common meaning of the word “person” is a human being. And, although the word has been held to have a broader mеaning under some statutes, under the above section of the statutes it is obvious that the legislature intended that the filing of the noticе should be with the human being who holds the office to which delivery should be made.
The clerk of a county court, and the clerk of thе supreme court for that county, are the same person by virtue of the *499 Statute, 4 V. S. A. §601. The .legislature did not provide in 12 V. S. A. §2383 that a cеrtain number of notices of appeal should be filed, which it could have done if it so intended. What was specified was that а notice of appeal must be filed with the persons who hold the clerical offices in both the lower and appеllate courts, so that both the court appealed from, and the cou!rt appealed to, would have noticе of the appeal.
The filing of a single notice of appeal with a person who is clerk of both the courts involved is sufficient to notify him, and through him the respective courts that he serves, of the taking of the appeal, and the legislative rеquirement is satisfied. It would take specious and strained reasoning to believe that a person serving both courts would be of such a dual personality that' it would take one notice of appeal to notify him as to his responsibilities as clerk of thе county court, and that another, and identical notice of appeal, would be needed to cause him to function as clerk of the supreme court.
The case of
State
v.
Brown,
Here, a notice of appeal was filed with the person, who, by virtue of law, was clerk of bоth the court appealed from and the reviewing court, and within the time provided for by the statute. The notice of appeal was made a docket entry on the county court records, and the case was passed to this Corut.
Motion denied.