Durand v. Landry

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Durand v. Landry

48 So. 307, 118 La. 711, 1907 La. LEXIS 792

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 4, 1907

DocketNo. 16,418

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 48 So. 307 (Durand v. Landry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durand v. Landry, 48 So. 307, 118 La. 711, 1907 La. LEXIS 792 (La. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

LAND, J.

On August 4, 1906, the relator moved, in open court, for a suspensive, and in the alternative for a devolutive, appeal to the Supreme Court returnable on the first Monday of October, 1906. The appeal was granted as prayed for, and the bond for either appeal was fixed by the court at $100. The relator did not perfect and prosecute this appeal.

■ .On November 21, 1906, the relator moved the court for an order of devolutive appeal, which was refused, on the ground that the relator was not entitled to a second order for a devolutive appeal. The respondent judge erred. The precise question was decided in Bowie v. Davis, 33 La. Ann. 345; the court holding that the failure of the plaintiff to perfect the first appeal, which was suspensive and devolutive, was not an abandonment thereof, and that the plaintiff consequently had the right, within the year, to another order for a devolutive appeal. This decision is bottomed on the principle that there is no appeal until the bond is given, it matters not how many orders of appeal have been granted, and is sustained by a number of authorities cited in the text.

It is therefore ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue as prayed for, directing the respondent judge to grant the relator a devolutive appeal from the judgment in the case of W. J. Durand v. Mrs. Luc. B. Landry, returnable to this court, and to fix the return day and the amount of bond.

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

LAND, J.

On August 4, 1906, the relator moved, in open court, for a suspensive, and in the alternative for a devolutive, appeal to the Supreme Court returnable on the first Monday of October, 1906. The appeal was granted as prayed for, and the bond for either appeal was fixed by the court at $100. The relator did not perfect and prosecute this appeal.

■ .On November 21, 1906, the relator moved the court for an order of devolutive appeal, which was refused, on the ground that the relator was not entitled to a second order for a devolutive appeal. The respondent judge erred. The precise question was decided in Bowie v. Davis, 33 La. Ann. 345; the court holding that the failure of the plaintiff to perfect the first appeal, which was suspensive and devolutive, was not an abandonment thereof, and that the plaintiff consequently had the right, within the year, to another order for a devolutive appeal. This decision is bottomed on the principle that there is no appeal until the bond is given, it matters not how many orders of appeal have been granted, and is sustained by a number of authorities cited in the text.

It is therefore ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue as prayed for, directing the respondent judge to grant the relator a devolutive appeal from the judgment in the case of W. J. Durand v. Mrs. Luc. B. Landry, returnable to this court, and to fix the return day and the amount of bond.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 So. 307, 118 La. 711, 1907 La. LEXIS 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durand-v-landry-la-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack