Cookmeyer v. Cookmeyer
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 14, 1932 138 So. 675; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 20, 1907 4 Teiss. 351; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 27, 1956 87 So. 2d 339
Cookmeyer v. Cookmeyer, 244 So. 2d 78 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970).
Cited by
- Duzon v. Stallworth 866 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
- Cookmeyer v. Cookmeyer 354 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
- Malone v. Malone 282 So. 2d 119 La. 1973
- Pruett v. City of Hunden 270 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Orrell v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 248 La. 576
- Pennison v. Pennison 157 So. 2d 628
- Tooley v. Pennison 245 La. 585
- Glisson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad 159 So. 2d 290
- Brown v. Brown 180 So. 2d 106
- Bowden v. Bowden 203 So. 2d 879
- Manderfield v. Manderfield 221 So. 2d 898
- Schneider v. Manion 217 La. 118
Opinion text
REDMANN, Judge. Plaintiff appeals from- a judgment dismissing his suit for separation from bed and board and claim for alimony pendente lite, and granting a separation and, in effect, alimony on his wife’s reconventional demand. Oral argument on the merits was had, from which it appeared to us that the judgment appealed from would have to be affirmed; but we find that we cannot consider that question. On inspection of the record we find that the appeal must be dismissed because the appeal bond was not timely filed and we accordingly have no jurisdiction. We are obliged on our own motion to notice lack of jurisdiction; Orrell' v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 248 La. 576 , 180 So.2d 710 (1965). Notice of the December 17, 1969 judgment was mailed to counsel on December 18, thus allowing Friday the 19th and Monday and Tuesday the 22d and 23d as the delay for applying for a new trial, C.C.P. art. 1974. C.C.P. art. 2087(1) fix *79 es the beginning of the delay for taking an appeal at “the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial * * * ” where no application is timely filed. An appeal from a judgment granting a separation “can be taken only within thirty days”, C.C.P. art. 3942, “from the applicable date provided in Article 2087(l)-(3).” The same is true as to alimony judgments, art. 3943. Thus the appeal from the judgment here had to be taken within 30 days of December 23, 1969, or not later than Thursday, January 22, 1970. The bond specified in the order of appeal was not filed until January 23, and we therefore have no power to review that judgment now but must dismiss the appeal; Pennison v. Pen-nison, 157 So.2d 628 (La.App. 1963), writ refused 245 La. 585 , 159 So.2d 290 ; Brown v. Brown, 180 So.2d 106 (La.App.1965); Bowden v. Bowden, 203 So.2d 879 (La.App. 1967), Manderfield v. Manderfield, 221 So. 2d 898 (La.App. 1969). See also Schneider v. Manion, 217 La. 118 , 46 So.2d 58 (1950); but note that holidays are no longer excluded in the computation of the delay, C.C.P. art. 5059. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.