Del Tyler v. Ingraham

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Del Tyler v. Ingraham

119 So. 439, 9 La. App. 366, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 288

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 10, 1928

DocketNo. 11,537

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 So. 439 (Del Tyler v. Ingraham) 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

Del Tyler v. Ingraham, 119 So. 439, 9 La. App. 366, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 288 (La. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

JANVIER, Judge ad hoc.

The judgment in this matter was rendered on May 23, 1927. A motion for appeal was filed exactly one year later, to-wit: May 23, 1928.

Act 128 of 1921, which was passed to regulate the practice in the City Courts for the City of New Orleans, provides in Section 1, among other things, “Appeals shall be allowed, and be returnable to the Court of Appeal, within ten days, exclusive of Sundays, from the rendition of the judgment, * * *.” It is very plain that under this act, this appeal must be dismissed as having been taken after the expiration of the allotted time. This court passed on this identical question in “Estate of L. R. Saissont vs. A. S. Demourelle, 4 La. App. 160. The constitutionality of Act 128 of 1921 was attacked in that case and it was held that the act was in all respects constitutional and the appeal was dismissed. We must take the same action here.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to dismiss be sustained and that the appeal herein taken be dismissed at appellant’s cost.

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

JANVIER, Judge ad hoc.

The judgment in this matter was rendered on May 23, 1927. A motion for appeal was filed exactly one year later, to-wit: May 23, 1928.

Act 128 of 1921, which was passed to regulate the practice in the City Courts for the City of New Orleans, provides in Section 1, among other things, “Appeals shall be allowed, and be returnable to the Court of Appeal, within ten days, exclusive of Sundays, from the rendition of the judgment, * * *.” It is very plain that under this act, this appeal must be dismissed as having been taken after the expiration of the allotted time. This court passed on this identical question in “Estate of L. R. Saissont vs. A. S. Demourelle, 4 La. App. 160. The constitutionality of Act 128 of 1921 was attacked in that case and it was held that the act was in all respects constitutional and the appeal was dismissed. We must take the same action here.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to dismiss be sustained and that the appeal herein taken be dismissed at appellant’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 439, 9 La. App. 366, 1928 La. App. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/del-tyler-v-ingraham-lactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack