Succession of Richardson
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 21, 1972 269 So. 2d 589; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 15, 1960 124 So. 2d 355; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 5, 1910 8 Teiss. 67
Succession of Richardson, 26 La. Ann. 187 (1874).
Cited by
- Braun v. Veillon 117 So. 719 La. 1928
- Braun v. Veillon 117 So. 719 La. 1928
- United Railway Men's Oil Ass'n v. Dupuy 137 So. 73 La. 1927
Opinion text
WxLt, J. The motion to dismiss this appeal because the opponents, who are the appellants, have not given bond, must prevail. The only bond we find in the record is subscribed by M. McQueen, as principal, and Charles B. Austin, as security. It is not necessary that the appellant should sign the appeal bond; but an appeal granted to Elizabeth McQueen and others can not be perfected by an appeal bond signed by M. McQueen, as principal, and Charles B. Austin, as security. The surety of M. McQueen can not be regarded as the surety of Elizabeth McQueen. It is therefore ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed at the costs of the appellants.