Emmco Ins. Co. v. Erickson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Emmco Ins. Co. v. Erickson

57 So. 2d 604, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 496

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 17, 1952

DocketNo. 19930

StatusPublished

This text of 57 So. 2d 604 (Emmco Ins. Co. v. Erickson) 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

Emmco Ins. Co. v. Erickson, 57 So. 2d 604, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 496 (La. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appellants have failed to furnish an appeal bond in accordance with Article 575 et seq. of the Code of Practice.

The particular objection, made is that the bond given is not for any specific amount, the space in which the amount should have been written having been left blank.

In answer to the motion to dismiss the appeal, counsel for appellants direct attention to sections 4573 and 4579 of LSA-Revised Statutes Title 13 and suggest that the appeal should not be dismissed for the reason that a new bond has been furnished in which the correct amount, $300, has been inserted.

Section 4579 reads as follows: “No appeal shall be dismissed, nor shall any writ, or other process be set aside on account of any error in the amount of the bond, or for any inaccuracy or omission in the bond, or for the insufficiency of any surety, or sureties, on the bond, until the party furnishing such bond shall have failed to correct the error, inaccuracy or omission, or to have furnished a supplemental or additional bond, or surety or sureties, as provided in R.S. 13:4571 through 13:4580.”

In Anagnosti v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., 52 So.2d 875, we discussed a motion to dismiss based on almost identical grounds, and held that, because of the effect of section 4579 of Title 13 of LSA-Revised Statutes, the appeal should not be dismissed. In that case the bond under attack had not been signed by the surety, it was not dated, and the amount thereof had not been set forth therein. We overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal, and think that similar action is appropriate here.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Motion to dismiss overruled.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appellants have failed to furnish an appeal bond in accordance with Article 575 et seq. of the Code of Practice.

The particular objection, made is that the bond given is not for any specific amount, the space in which the amount should have been written having been left blank.

In answer to the motion to dismiss the appeal, counsel for appellants direct attention to sections 4573 and 4579 of LSA-Revised Statutes Title 13 and suggest that the appeal should not be dismissed for the reason that a new bond has been furnished in which the correct amount, $300, has been inserted.

Section 4579 reads as follows: “No appeal shall be dismissed, nor shall any writ, or other process be set aside on account of any error in the amount of the bond, or for any inaccuracy or omission in the bond, or for the insufficiency of any surety, or sureties, on the bond, until the party furnishing such bond shall have failed to correct the error, inaccuracy or omission, or to have furnished a supplemental or additional bond, or surety or sureties, as provided in R.S. 13:4571 through 13:4580.”

In Anagnosti v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., 52 So.2d 875, we discussed a motion to dismiss based on almost identical grounds, and held that, because of the effect of section 4579 of Title 13 of LSA-Revised Statutes, the appeal should not be dismissed. In that case the bond under attack had not been signed by the surety, it was not dated, and the amount thereof had not been set forth therein. We overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal, and think that similar action is appropriate here.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Motion to dismiss overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 2d 604, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmco-ins-co-v-erickson-lactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack