Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hurry v. Hurry, 81 So. 378.

26 citing documents.

Smith v. Crescent Chevrolet Co. 1 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Rhodes v. Miller 179 So. 430 La. 1938
Stallings v. Stallings 148 So. 687 La. 1933
Dares v. O'Donnell 147 So. 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
State v. Comus Cleaners 141 So. 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
878 , , refused to dismiss an appeal where the printed form used for the appeal bond was not filled in in the blank spaces for the name of the surety, the date of the bond, the date of the judgment, and the amount of the obligation, holding that the errors and omissions complained of in the motion were covered by the provis
Garland v. Keen 137 So. 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
881 , , a motion to dismiss an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.
State ex rel. Richardson v. Recorder of Mortgages 125 So. 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
182 ; Hurry vs. Hurry, , 81 So.
Overruled Thompson v. Succession of Gow 125 So. 588 La. 1929
Succession of Vezoux 119 So. 442 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1928
In answer to the motion to dismiss, it is contended, on behalf of Hebert, that the motion of appellee should have been filed in the District Court, in accordance with the provisions of Act 112 of 1926, citing Hurry vs. Hurry, , 81 So.
Stewart v. Clay 117 So. 147 La. 1928
Citizens Discount & Investment Co. v. Michon 7 La. App. 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
“Notice was thus served upon appellant Neely by means of a rule to test the sufficiency of the surety on his appeal bond of which he accepted service on June 22nd, 1915, and the second bond which he gave, in an attempt to take advantage of the provisions of said act, was filed in September, 1915, evidently too late.” On this point see also: Hurry vs. Hurry, , 81 So.
Citizens Discount & Investment Co. v. Michon 7 La. App. 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
n such' grounds as are now raised (insufficient bond) in the instant case should be first tried and considered in the trial court, from which the appeal is taken, and that an appellate court should only consider such questions when same are presented on appeal regularly taken from a judgment granting or dismissing such motions, unless the exceptions pointed out in the Hurry case (Hurry vs. Hurry, , 81 South.
Overruled Carter v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. 115 So. 662 La. 1927
Modisette & Adams v. Lorenze 112 So. 397 La. 1927
McCubbin v. McCubbin 111 So. 481 La. 1927
Hollingsworth v. Gleissner 6 La. App. 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
Under the circumstances, and by the terms of Section 9 of Act No. 112 of 1916, the appeal cannot be dismissed on account of the errors or omissions complained of in the motion to dismiss.” Hurry vs. Hurry, , 81 South, 378 .
Shreveport Long Leaf Lumber Co. v. Hollingsworth 105 So. 57 La. 1925
Rousseau v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. 2 La. App. 279 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1925
The procedure to be observed in conforming with the provisions of Act 112 of 1916, as well as the purposes of this Act, have been clearly set forth in the case of Hurry vs. Hurry, , 81 South.
Hickman v. Enterprises Lumber Co. 105 So. 343 La. 1925
Act 112 of 1916, §§ 3 and 9; , 81 So.
Grant v. Succession of Grant 105 So. 611 La. 1923
Falcon v. Corona 5 Pelt. 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1922
In Hurry vs Hurry the Court said: "Under Act No. 112 of 1916 §9, despite section 3, appellee in a divorce suit should have urged his complaint in relation to the insufficiency of appellant's appeal bond in the District Court, should have had it served on appellant* and should have given her opportunity to correct the errors, or to furn
Dowie v. Becker 88 So. 777 La. 1921
594 (where it was held that in order to disclose a cause of action, under the Act of 1916, it is necessary to allege only those facts and conditions required by that statute), , 81 South.
Lampton Realty Co. v. Kerr 98 So. 266 La. 1920
Overruled Bilich v. Mathe 89 So. 628 La. 1920
According to section 9 of Act 112 of 1916, an appeal should not be dismissed for any inaccuracy or error in the appeal bond, or for insufficiency of .the security, unless the appellant has been put in default, in the district court, in the manner directed by the statute: , 81 South.
Goudeau v. Goudeau 84 So. 39 La. 1920
Lepenser v. Griffin 83 So. 839 La. 1919
594 , in which case it was held that the act in question does not contravene article 166 of the state Constitution, declaring that— “No ex post facto law, or any law impairing the obligations of contracts, shall be passed, or vested rights be divested,” , 81 South.