Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mundy v. Phillips, 102 So. 519.
- Williams v. Credit Service Corporation 113 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
- Vaughn v. American Bank & Trust Co. 66 So. 2d 4 La. 1953
- Gasoline Plant Const. Corp. v. Blair 38 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
-
State v. Bahns
35 So. 2d 37
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
148 ; Mundy v. Phillips, 1925, , 102 So.
-
Borgnemouth Realty Co. v. Gulf Soap Corp.
29 So. 2d 841
La. 1947
148 ; Mundy v. Phillips, 1925, , 102 So.
-
Bates v. Hayden
188 So. 170
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
It is, of course, well settled that “the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases of appeal attaches on the filing of the bond of appeal, and the inferior court thereafter has no authority to take any steps in such cases, except such as are nec-sary to transmit the record and to test the solvency or sufficiency of the sureties on the appeal bond.” Mundy v. Phillips, et al., , 102 So.
- State Ex Rel. Roane v. Himel 176 So. 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Delatour v. Rispoli Poultry, Inc. 174 So. 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
-
Gazzo v. Bisso Ferry Co.
174 So. 132
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
[445], 450, .” We conclude that it was the duty of the appellant to lodge the transcript; that her failure to do so within the time permitted by law must be.construed as an abandonment; that she, as justification for her delay, may not rely upon the fact that she depended upon some one else, and also conclude that the question of
- Bailey v. Spiro 169 So. 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Davidson v. Richard McCarthy Co., Inc. 166 So. 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- Lewis v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans 164 So. 780 La. 1935
- Haas v. Buck 162 So. 181 La. 1935
- Paramount Wood Products Co. v. Colonial Fire Underwriters 158 So. 7 La. 1934
- In re Gem Co. 139 So. 11 La. 1932
- In Re Gem Co. 139 So. 11 La. 1932
- Moulin v. Monteleone 115 So. 447 La. 1927
-
Palmisano v. Faust
1 La. App. 756
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1925
App. See also Mundy vs. Phillips et al., , 102 South.