Bonnelucq v. Bernard

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Bonnelucq v. Bernard

39 So. 2d 447, 1949 La. App. LEXIS 455

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 14, 1949

DocketNo. 19220.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 So. 2d 447 (Bonnelucq v. Bernard) 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

Bonnelucq v. Bernard, 39 So. 2d 447, 1949 La. App. LEXIS 455 (La. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

This appeal was taken by motion in open court, and the transcript was lodged with us one day prior to February 1, 1949, which was the return date. On February 9, 1949, appellee moved for a dismissal of the appeal upon the ground that appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Act No. 217 of 1944. It is appellee's contention that a copy of the motion for the appeal should have been served on his counsel of record in accordance with the provisions of sections 2, 3, and 4 of said act, and that the original motion should have been accompanied by a certificate showing that a copy thereof had been so served.

Regardless of whatever merit, if any, the motion to dismiss might have had if timely filed, clearly it comes too late and cannot be considered by us.

A motion to dismiss an appeal because of a defect, informality, or irregularity which is not jurisdictional, and which does not strike at the foundation of the right of appeal, must be filed within three days after the return date. C.P. art. 886; Dart's La.Dig., Appeal, par. 526.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Motion denied. *Page 448

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

This appeal was taken by motion in open court, and the transcript was lodged with us one day prior to February 1, 1949, which was the return date. On February 9, 1949, appellee moved for a dismissal of the appeal upon the ground that appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Act No. 217 of 1944. It is appellee's contention that a copy of the motion for the appeal should have been served on his counsel of record in accordance with the provisions of sections 2, 3, and 4 of said act, and that the original motion should have been accompanied by a certificate showing that a copy thereof had been so served.

Regardless of whatever merit, if any, the motion to dismiss might have had if timely filed, clearly it comes too late and cannot be considered by us.

A motion to dismiss an appeal because of a defect, informality, or irregularity which is not jurisdictional, and which does not strike at the foundation of the right of appeal, must be filed within three days after the return date. C.P. art. 886; Dart's La.Dig., Appeal, par. 526.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Motion denied. *Page 448

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 So. 2d 447, 1949 La. App. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonnelucq-v-bernard-lactapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack