Succession of Walker
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., July 30, 1980 387 So. 2d 26; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 26, 1969 224 So. 2d 44; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 30, 1951 53 So. 2d 167; La. Ct. App. 5th Cir., June 27, 1919 2 Pelt. 606
Succession of Walker, 32 La. Ann. 525 (1880).
Cited by
- Pichon v. Pichon Land Co. 139 So. 764 La. 1932
- Blum v. Haas 51 So. 53 La. 1909
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 6 La. 586 not in our corpus
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. The opinion of the court was delivered by Poché, J. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal in this case on several grounds, and among others, that there is no appeal-bond, as the law requires. We find in the transcript the copy of a paper purporting to be an appeal-bond, executed by Samuel Walker as principal, and M. E. Big-ney as surety, bearing date the 19th of November, 1879. But the document contains no mention whatever of the title of the suit or matter in which the judgment appealed from was rendered, nor of the nature or scope of such judgment, nor of the date of the rendering and signing of the judgment, nor of the name of the party in whose favor it was rendered, nor of the party east in the suit. In short, we find in the document no description, information, or landmarks of any kind, through which the pretended appeal-bond could be identified or connected with any cause pending before this, or any other, court. It is, therefore, an unmeaning paper, and if intended as an appeal-bond in this case, it is so radically defective as to justify the conclusion that this appeal comes to us without a bond. 6 La. 586 ; 10 A. 155 ; 12 R. 205 . It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal be dismissed with costs. Chief Justice Bermudez recuses himself in this case, having been of counsel in the case.