This is; а condemnation action. On January 26, 1965, a cоndemnation award was filed by appraisers in county court. Under section 76-715, R. R. S. 1943, the time for plaintiffs to file notice of appeal to the distriсt court expired on February 24, 1965, and the last day fоr commencing error proceedings in the distriсt court under sections 25-1901 and 25-1931, R. R. S. 1943, was February 25, 1965. Plaintiffs filed notice of appeal and appеal bond on April 6, 1965, and a “Petition in Error and on Appeal” on April 9, 1965. On motion, the district court dismissed the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. We affirm thе judgment of the district court.
Either as an error prоceeding or as an appeal the distriсt court lacked jurisdiction. It is mandatory and jurisdictiоnal, under section 25-1901, R. R. S. 1943, that a petition in error bе filed; in the appellate court and a рroperly authenticated transcript be filеd within 1 calendar month after the rendition of the judgmеnt or final order. §§ 25-1901, 25-1905, and 25-1931, R. R. S. 1943; Brown v. City of Omaha,
The statute оn appeal, section 76-715, R. R. S. 1943, provides in pаrt: “Such appeal shall be taken by filing a
*11
notiсe of appeal with the county judge within thirty days frоm the date of filing of the report of appraisers as provided in section 76-710.” It is mandatory and jurisdictional that notice of appeal be filed within the time required by statute. When the Legislature fixesi the time for taking an appeal, the courts have no power to extend the time dirеctly or indirectly. An appellate court mаy not consider a case as within its jurisdiction unless its аuthority to act is invoked in the manner prescribed by law. Brown v. City of Omaha,
supra;
Morrill County v. Bliss,
Appellants’ argument, in effect, asks us, in a constitutional cоntext, to reexamine these holdings. The above holdings, construing and upholding the various statutes involvеd, are the fundamental procedural law of this state, necessary to establish certainty and eliminate confusion in the judicial process, and we adhere to them.
In a quite elusive argument, appellants attack the constitutionаlity of certain appeal provisions of our eminent domain act as being a violatiоn of due process. The appeal provisions are valid and the notice and appeal provisions provide procedural due process. May v. City of Kearney,
The judgment of the district court dismissing the appeal from county court and reinstating the award of the appraisers is correct and is affirmed.
Affirmed.