Tupery v. Edmondson
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 20, 1978 365 So. 2d 1156; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 8, 1966 189 So. 2d 721; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 8, 1916 13 Tiess. 465; La., February 15, 1878 30 La. Ann. 355; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., June 11, 1975 314 So. 2d 441
Tupery v. Edmondson, 29 La. Ann. 850 (1877).
Cited by
- Pellachino v. Cryer 157 So. 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
- Kelly, Weber & Co. v. F. D. Harvey & Co. 151 So. 201 La. 1933
- Simeon v. Board of Levee Com'rs 124 So. 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
- Hendren v. Crescent City Seltzer & Mineral Water Co. 1 La. App. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1924
- Grasser v. Blank 34 So. 648 La. 1903
Opinion text
On .Motion to Dismiss. The opinion of the court was delivered by Egan, J: The appellee moves to dismiss this appeal because the bond was not filed within ten days as required by law. The judgment was signed on the eighteenth of June, 1877, and the bond filed on the thirtieth of the same month. One Sunday was included in this time. We held in the case of the State ex rel. Mercier vs. the Judge of the Superior District Court, 29 An. 224, that by the express textual provision of the Code of Practice, article 575, Sundays are excluded in the count of the time within which the appeal is to be taken, and that the provision of article 318 C. P., “but in all cases where delay is given either to do some *851 'thing or to answer neither the day of serving the notice nor that dn: which the act is to be done or the answer filed are included ” applies to; taking appeals. The law and the courts do not favor the dismissing .of-appeals. Omitting from the count in this case the day the judgment was signed, the intervening Sunday, and the day the bond was filed, it-is in time. The motion to dismiss is overruled.