Campbell v. Deville
Campbell v. Deville, 112 So. 491 (La. 1922).
Cited by
- City of New Orleans v. Buhberg 126 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- Southern Premium Service v. Oddo 75 So. 2d 20 La. 1954
- Buisson v. Prestia 45 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
- Dauphine v. Herbert 37 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1948
- La Graize v. Tracy 30 So. 2d 828 La. 1947
- Sargent v. Polar Bar Ice Cream Co. 196 So. 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
- Lewis v. Burglass 171 So. 564 La. 1936
- Lewis v. Burglass 168 So. 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Farrow v. John R. Thompson Co. 135 So. 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 27 La. Ann. 173 not in our corpus
- Jones v. City of Shreveport 28 La. Ann. 835
- Jacobs v. Yale & Bowling 39 La. Ann. 359
- 1 So. 822 not in our corpus
- 31 La. Ann. 171 not in our corpus
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. OVERTON, J. The defendant was condemned by judgment rendered in the court below to pay plaintiff $250 as damages, with legal interest from the date of judgment till paid. The defendant was then granted an appeal returnable to this court on June 1, 1920, but failed to file the transcript until November 22, 1920. No extension of time was granted him within which to file it. On December 2, 1920, plaintiff and appellee filed an answer to the appeal, complaining that she was not compensated sufficiently by the judgment appealed from and praying that it be increased from $250 to $5,000, or to so much of the latter amount as this court may think should be allowed. On January 9, 1922, plaintiff and appellee filed the motion to dismiss the appeal, now under consideration, urging, as ground for its dismissal, the fact that the transcript was not filed in this court until several months after the expiration of the return day. When appellant failed to' file the transcript timely, this court did not lose all right to pass on the appeal, for the appellee, by this failure, acquired the right to bring the record here and to move for the dismissal of the appeal, or to pray for judgment, in the same manner as if the record had been brought up by the appellant. C. P. arts. 590 and 884. The appellee, however, did not elect to pursue either of these courses, but instead, when the appellant did file the transcript, she availed herself of the appeal by praying for an increase in the judgment, thereby virtually joining in the appeal. This *577 precludes her from now dismissing the appeal. Michel v. Meyer, 27 La. Ann. 173 ; Jones v. Shreveport, 28 La. Ann. 835 ; Jacobs v. Yale & Bowling, 39 La. Ann. 359 , 1 So. 822 ; Claflin & Co. v. Lisso & Scbeen, 31 La. Ann. 171 . It is therefore ordered and decreed that the motion to dismiss be overruled. ■