AMFAC Drug Supply Co. v. Drago

Louisiana Court of Appeal

AMFAC Drug Supply Co. v. Drago

358 So. 2d 962, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4387

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 2, 1977

DocketNos. 11818, 11833

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 358 So. 2d 962 (AMFAC Drug Supply Co. v. Drago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

AMFAC Drug Supply Co. v. Drago, 358 So. 2d 962, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4387 (La. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is being dismissed because of appellant’s failure to pay court costs and filing fee in accordance with the last paragraph of LSA-C.C.P. 2126, as amended, not for failure to pay the estimated costs under the first two paragraphs.¹ Appellant has been given benefit of these delays; the transcript was prepared and filed in the record on August 16, 1977, without waiting for the payment of the estimate of costs. These omissions on the clerk’s part are therefore irrelevant. On September 20, well before the return day of October 4, the clerk called Amfac’s attorney’s office and left a message with his secretary giving the amount of costs. Appellant had failed to pay on October 4, so the clerk in accordance with the duty imposed on him, asked the court for an extension. The court denied the request. On these facts we cannot say the court abused its discretion.

Appellant knew of the return date and of his duty under LSA-C.C.P. 2126 to pay all costs prior to that time. Even at that the clerk attempted to secure an extension and failed.

This is not a case like Davidge v. Magliola, La., 346 So.2d 177, or Hawthorne v. Slaydon, 351 So.2d 1231 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1977), reversed La., 353 So.2d 286 (1977). The clerk here has presented the matter to the court.

REHEARING DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is being dismissed because of appellant’s failure to pay court costs and filing fee in accordance with the last paragraph of LSA-C.C.P. 2126, as amended, not for failure to pay the estimated costs under the first two paragraphs.¹ Appellant has been given benefit of these delays; the transcript was prepared and filed in the record on August 16, 1977, without waiting for the payment of the estimate of costs. These omissions on the clerk’s part are therefore irrelevant. On September 20, well before the return day of October 4, the clerk called Amfac’s attorney’s office and left a message with his secretary giving the amount of costs. Appellant had failed to pay on October 4, so the clerk in accordance with the duty imposed on him, asked the court for an extension. The court denied the request. On these facts we cannot say the court abused its discretion.

Appellant knew of the return date and of his duty under LSA-C.C.P. 2126 to pay all costs prior to that time. Even at that the clerk attempted to secure an extension and failed.

This is not a case like Davidge v. Magliola, La., 346 So.2d 177, or Hawthorne v. Slaydon, 351 So.2d 1231 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1977), reversed La., 353 So.2d 286 (1977). The clerk here has presented the matter to the court.

REHEARING DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 So. 2d 962, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amfac-drug-supply-co-v-drago-lactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack