Turner v. French
Turner v. French, 131 So. 289 (La. 1930).
Cited by
- Smith v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Co. 365 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
- LOUISIANA DISTRICT, ETC. v. Church of Nazarene 132 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- State Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Cage 151 So. 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Lombas v. Robichaux 14 La. Ann. 105
- State v. Judge of the Second District Court of New Orleans 16 La. Ann. 390
- 154 La. 710 not in our corpus
- Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Shell Beach Const. Co. 98 So. 160
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. ST. PAUL, J. Plaintiff sued out executory process against the defendant. The order of seizure and sale issued on June 13,1930. It was notified to the defendant on June 18, 1930; On June 30,1930, defendant obtained an order for a suspensive appeal, but did not furnish the requisite bond until July 8, 1930, or more than ten days after receipt of notice of the order of seizure and sale. The appeal was perfected too late. The delays for a suspensive appeal from an order of seizure and sale run from the notification thereof to the defendant. Lombas v. Robichaux, 14 La. Ann. 105 ; State v. Judge, 16 La. Ann. 390 . The contention that the delays for appeal run only from the time the formal writ of seizure and sale is made out by the clerk and delivered to the sheriff is untenable. That is done only after the notice of demand for payment has been served. And the only notice which the defendant is entitled to is this demand for payment. Code Prac. Art. 73(5. As a suspensive appeal, this appeal comes too late; and no devolutive appeal lies from an executory process. Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Shell Beach Const. Co., 154 La. 710 , 98 So. 160 . Decree. The appeal herein taken is therefore dismissed. O’NIELL, C. J., and OVEETON, J., concur in the decree.