Duncan v. Fowler
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 14, 1982 413 So. 2d 354; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 21, 1958 100 So. 2d 311; La., March 15, 1883 35 La. Ann. 257; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., February 14, 1978 355 So. 2d 1033; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 13, 1972 261 So. 2d 364
Duncan v. Fowler, 7 Pelt. 89 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1922).
Opinion text
*90 JAMES H. DUNCAN ETC vs RANDELL B. FOWLER Ho. 8768 OHAS. F. CLAIBORHE, JUDGE. On-motion to dismiss--- Judgment was rend«red in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on June 6th, and signed on the same day. From thiB judgment the defendant, on June 16th, obtained an order for a suspensive appeal. On June 20th he filed an appeal bond. Thus it appears that the. appeal bond was. filed fourteen days after the rendition of the judgment. Plaintiff and appelleemoveB to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed "more than ten judicial days .from the signing of the judgment." This ia a suit for $126.87 and was tried by the City Court of Hew Orleans under section 91 of the Constitution of 1921 p.65 — Aot 128- of 1921 p. S32 entitled: "An Aot to regulate the praotloe in the City uourts of How Orleans, and to carry- into effect sections 90, 91, and 92 of Article VII of the Constitution" and provides as follows: "Appeals shall be allowed, and be returnable to the Court of Appeals within ten days/ exclusive of Sundays, from the rendition of the jadgment<4on. It has been held tha.f "every act required by law to perfect an appeal, when taken, must be performed within the delay allowed for taking the, appeal". Heed vs His Crs 37 A. 907 and authorities there quoted--Psoples' Bank vs Aroeneaux 134 is. 29.2 and authorities *91 He.: 8710 Ct. App,. Jane 19th, 1982. It le therefor# ordered that the appeal herein he dlemlBeed. Ootéher 16, 1928