Doiron v. Vacuum Oil Co.
Doiron v. Vacuum Oil Co., 115 So. 752 (La. 1928).
Cited by
- Ratcliff v. Boydell 566 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- Thomas v. Reliance Insurance Company 215 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
- Martinolich v. Albert 143 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Southport Petroleum Co. v. Fithian 13 So. 2d 382 La. 1943
- Louisiana Highway Commission v. McCain 1 So. 2d 545 La. 1941
- In Re Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. 169 So. 464 La. 1936
- In Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. 167 So. 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
- In Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. 161 So. 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- In Re Liquidation of Canal Bank & Trust Co. 160 So. 609 La. 1935
- Anderson v. Harvey & Jones 154 So. 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
- Great Southern Lumber Co. v. James Stanton Const. Co. 151 So. 66 La. 1933
- Dufrene v. Dufrene 149 So. 889 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Doiron v. Vacuum Oil Co. 164 La. 15
- Gagneaux v. Desonier 104 La. 648
- 29 So. 282 not in our corpus
- Coudroy v. Pecot 25 So. 270
- Moss v. Reims 52 La. Ann. 566
- 27 So. 68 not in our corpus
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. ST. PAUL, J. The details of this case may be found set forth in full in Doiron v. Vacuum Oil Co. et al., 164 La. 15 , 113 So. 748 . It is unnecessary to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that the present appellant, Mrs. Onezima De Bouchel, was one of the defendants in said case and asserted a claim to the property therein involved; that her claim was rejected by a judgment therein rendered on August 11, 1926; that on the same day she applied for and was .granted an appeal returnable to this court on October 1, 1926, conditioned on her furnishing a certain appeal bond; that she took no steps to furnish said appeal bond until the 25th day of July, 1927, and did not lodge the transcript in this court until August 4, 1927, nor did she apply to this court for any extension of time. There can be no appeal withoht an order of appeal duly granted by the court below. That is jurisdictional. Gagneaux v. Desonier, 104 La. 648 , 29 So. 282 . But an order of appeal which has expired is equivalent to no order at all, and an order of appeal lapses with the expiration of the return day therein fixed. Coudroy v. Pecot, *565 51 La. Ann: 495, 25 So. 270 ; Moss v. Reims, 52 La. Ann. 566 , 27 So. 68 . Decree. The appeal herein taken is therefore dismissed.