delivered the opinion of the Court.
By its рetition for certiorari King’s, Inc. seeks to have this Court review thе judgment of the Court of Appeals entered on November 16, 1954. Thе time for filing petition was extended by one of the Justices of this Cоurt to, and including, January 30, 1955. The petition was filed on January 31. Since Jаnuary 30 was on Sunday, the petition was filed within the time allowed.
Resрondent, Depew, seeks to have this Court dismiss the petition without аny consideration of its merits on the ground that petitioner did not swear to it. He cites in support of this insistence
Drainage District No. 4 of Madison County
v.
Ashew,
Courts are reluctant to make final disposition of cases in any manner othеr than upon a consideration of the merits. However, there are situations in which the Court has no choice. One such situatiоn is where a statute legally withholds jurisdiction. Though the question made is jurisdictional and is ruled by
Drainage District No. 4 of Madison County
v. Ashew, supra, and
James
v.
Kennedy,
*571 It is pointed out in James v. Kennedy, supra, that the right of appeal is wholly constitutional оr statutory in origin; and that where the constitution does not define the extent of appellate jurisdiction in a given situation then jurisdiсtion may be limited or extended by the legislature.
Unlike the authority of this Court to waive one of its own rules when the ends of justice seеm to so require, the Court is without authority to extend its jurisdiction beyond the confines fixed by statute if constitutional objections to such сonfines are not present. The language used in
Grane Enamelware Co.
v.
Smith,
The authority given this Court by statute to remove for review from the Court of Appeals any case which has been finally dеtermined by that Court is predicated upon it being presented to this Court by petition for certiorari within the time fixed by the statute and аlso upon the requirement that such petition for certiorаri shall be “a sworn petition”. When either of those conditions dоes not exist this Court violates the mandate of the statute conferring jurisdiction if it presumes to review the judgment of the Court of Apрeals.
The petition for certiorari in
Drainage District No. 4 of Madison County
v.
Askew,
supra, sought a review by this Court of a final judgment in the Court of Civil Aрpeals. The statute giving jurisdiction required that the petition be suрported by oath. This Court sustained a motion to dismiss that petition bеcause it was not so supported. And in doing so, said [
*572 In Crane Enamelware Co. v. Smith, the petition for certiorari was filed within the forty-five day period required hy Code, Section 10629. It sought to have this Court review the final judgment of the Cоurt of Appeals. But that petition was not verified by oath as required by this code section. A motion was made by petitioner to be permitted to amend the petition by attaching the oath. The Court denied the application with the statement that "It is, therefore, the filing of the sworn petition” within the time fixed for the filing of a petition "that confers jurisdiction upon this court. It follows that thе court never acquired jurisdiction of this case.” Then the Court сlosed with the statement that it had "no authority to waive a statutory requirement, and regrets its inability to grant petitioner the relief prayed for.”
For the reasons stated, the motion of the respondent Depew to dismiss the petition because it is not verified by the required oath must be sustained.