Carter v. Bolden
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., October 22, 1971 253 So. 2d 693; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 19, 1971 250 So. 2d 834; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 7, 1969 225 So. 2d 120; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 18, 1952 62 So. 2d 548; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 24, 1930 127 So. 111
Carter v. Bolden, 124 So. 562 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929).
Cited by
- St. Cyr v. Bryant 203 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1967
- Riggs v. F. Strauss Son 2 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
- Dorfer v. City of Natchitoches 160 So. 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Stockbridge v. Martin 162 La. 601
Opinion text
WEBB, J. In this matter, defendants appealed from a judgment declaring certain transfers of immovable property by plaintiff to defendant, her daughter, to have been null and void, from which judgment defendants obtained orders of appeal returnable here on May 15, 1929. Appellants filed appeal bonds within ten days from the date of the judgment for the amounts fixed under the order, but the transcript was not filed until June 5, 1929, and appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, to which appellants answer that the failure to file the transcript was not due to their fault and that “ the transcript was filed with the consent of counsel for appellee. . \ Passing the effect which might result from any consent of the appellee to the filing of the transcript after the return date, the rules of this court provide that the transcript of appeal shall be sent to the clerk of this court by' the clerk of the district court in time to be filed here on or before the return day, under which it is the duty of the clerk of the district court to file the record in this court, and it is not alleged or any showing made that the failure to file the record here was due to the fault of appellants, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is refused. (Stockbridge vs. Martin, 162 La. 601 , 110 So. 828 .)