William D. Seymour & Co. v. Castell
William D. Seymour & Co. v. Castell, 107 So. 143 (La. 1926).
Cited by
- Landis Construction Co. v. Health Education Authority 367 So. 2d 330 La. 1979
- Neubauer v. Thiac 264 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Wisner v. Mid-South Credit Services Corp. 250 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Kizer v. Garnier 89 So. 2d 119 La. 1956
- B. Olinde & Sons Co. v. Istrouma Mercantile Co. 172 So. 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
- Fletcher v. Crichton 164 So. 411 La. 1935
- Fletcher v. Crichton 162 So. 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
- Gibson v. G. Dounson, Inc. 147 So. 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
- Bazer v. Grimmett 135 So. 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
- William D. Seymour Co. v. Castell 125 So. 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
- Williams v. Leyland Line S. S. Co. 119 So. 431 La. 1928
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Landry v. T. Le Boeuf & Sons 153 La. 31
- Town of Mandeville v. Paquette 95 So. 391
- J. S. Terry Const. Co. v. James K. Sutherlin Co. 145 La. 397
- J. S. Terry Const. Co. v. James K. Sutherlin Co. 82 So. 384
Opinion text
On Motion to Dismiss. ST. PAUL, J. On July 31, 1925, one of the defendants herein was allowed a suspensive appeal, returnable to this court on September 28th. On September 28th he obtained an extension of the return day to October 28th. On October 29th he filed the transcript of appeal m this court. On October 31st appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the transcript had been filed (one day) too late. I. In Landry v. Le Boeuf & Sons, 153 La. 31 , 95 So. 391 , this court said: “It is well settled that the three days of grace allowed for the filing of a transcript of appeal,- or for obtaining an extension or postponement of the return day, do not apply again when the return day has once been extended or postponed” ■—citing numerous authorities. This was a case in which the delay was due apparently to the negligence of a railway express company in not forwarding the transcript in time. But the fact that the delay might be attributable to the express company availed the appellant nothing; it being held that it was the duty of the appellant himself to- see that the transcript reached this court on or before the expiration of the delay in which to file it. II. In Terry Construction Co. v. James K. Sutherlin Co., 145 La. 397 , 82 So. 384 , this court said: “When the time for filing a transcript is extended by order of this court, the transcript must be filed on or before the expiration of the delay so granted, unless, within such delay, an order granting further delay is applied for and obtained. .It is too late thereafter to apply for such [further] extension. The motion to dismiss, in such ease, may he filed at any time”— citing authorities. *375 Decree. The suspensive appeal herein taken is therefore dismissed.