Brooks v. Smith
Brooks v. Smith, 45 So. 388 (La. 1908).
Cited by
- Gazzo v. Bisso Ferry Co. 174 So. 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Richardson v. Henderson Sugar Refinery Co. 7 La. App. 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
- Rooney v. Checker Cab Co. 4 La. App. 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
- J. S. Terry Const. Co. v. James K. Sutherlin Co. 82 So. 384 La. 1919
- Vasquez v. Vasquez 62 So. 123 La. 1913
- Richardson v. Cobb 57 So. 889 La. 1912
- Girod v. Monroe Brick Co. 53 So. 582 La. 1910
- Brooks v. Magee 52 So. 551 La. 1910
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Brooks v. Smith 118 La. 758
- Bienvenu v. Factors' & Traders' Insurance 33 La. Ann. 209
- 42 La. Ann. 475 not in our corpus
- Mutual Loan & Building Ass'n v. First African Baptist Church 49 La. Ann. 880
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal. MONROE, J. Defendants (appellees) move to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that a previous appeal was dismissed because of the failure of the appellants to bring up the transcript within the delay fixed. The fact being as stated (Brooks v. Smith, 118 La. 758 , 43 South. 399 ), the motion must prevail. When an appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to file the transcript in time, it is considered abandoned, and cannot afterwards be renewed. Code Prac. art. 594. Bienvenu v. Insurance Co., 33 La. Ann. 209 ; Succession of Llula, 42 La. Ann. 475 , 7 South. 585 ; Mut. B. & L. *455 Ass’n v. Church, 49 La. Ann. 880 , 21 South. 517 . It is therefore ordered that the appeal be dismissed.