Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bilich v. Mathe, 89 So. 628.

15 citing documents.

Dares v. O'Donnell 147 So. 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
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.” See, also, , 89 So.
Garland v. Keen 137 So. 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
485 , , the Suprenie Court said: “The defendant has moved to dismiss this appeal for irregularities in the appeal bond.
England v. First Natl. Life Ins. 132 So. 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Max Barnett Furniture Co. v. Bomarito 130 So. 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Overruled Thompson v. Succession of Gow 125 So. 588 La. 1929
Stewart v. Clay 117 So. 147 La. 1928
Otero v. Ewing 115 So. 633 La. 1927
Constitution, art. 7, § 10; , 89 So.
Overruled Carter v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. 115 So. 662 La. 1927
Modisette & Adams v. Lorenze 112 So. 397 La. 1927
Overruled Hollingsworth v. Gleissner 6 La. App. 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1926
“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.” Bilich vs. Mathe, , 89 South.
Creston Lumber Co. v. Estate of Cockerham 2 La. App. 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
Bilich vs. Mathe, , 89 South.
Hickman v. Enterprises Lumber Co. 105 So. 343 La. 1925
Jacobs Bros. Walkover Boot Shop v. Bel 1 La. App. 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
239 ; Billich vs. Mathe, , 89 So.
O.K. Realty Co. v. John A. Juliani, Inc. 1 La. App. 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
Bilich vs. Mathe, , 89 So.
Grant v. Succession of Grant 105 So. 611 La. 1923