In re Lindner

37 So. 720, 113 La. 772, 1904 La. LEXIS 706
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMay 23, 1904
DocketNo. 14,929
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 37 So. 720 (In re Lindner) 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
In re Lindner, 37 So. 720, 113 La. 772, 1904 La. LEXIS 706 (La. 1904).

Opinions

On Motion to Dismiss.

PROVOSTY, J.

The appellee, John F. Lindner, having acquired certain property at [773]*773tax sale, applied to the court to he put in possession, and obtained an order accordingly. The appellant Philip J. Helmbeck, former owner of the property, sued out an injunction against the carrying out of the •writ of possession, on the ground that the tax sale was a nullity. The court dissolved the injunction, and Helmbeck has appealed. The appeal is suspensive, and the amount •of the bond, as required by law in such eases, has been fixed by the judge.

Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, in so far as suspensive, on the ground that the .amount of the bond is insufficient. In the alternative, he asks that the ease be remanded for the purpose of ascertaining whether the amount is sufficient, or not, for a suspensive appeal.

The motion cannot be considered, it having been made too late. Motions to dismiss for any irregularity or deficiency of the bond must be made within three days from the filing of the appeal in this court. In this case •the appeal was filed on June 24, 1903, and the motion to dismiss was filed on April 30, 1904. O’Reilly v. McLeod, 2 La. Ann. 138; Hall v. Nevill, 3 La. Ann. 326; Temple v. Marshall, 11 La. Ann. 613; Fisk v. Moss, 21 La. Ann. 329; Mitchell v. Lay, 4 La. Ann. 514; Kohn v. Davidson, 23 La. Ann. 467; Webb v. Keller, 39 La. Ann. 55, 1 South. 423; State v. Callac, 45 La. Ann. 27, 12 South. 19; Naghten v. Wife, 48 La. Ann. 799, 19 South. 762.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

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

Related

Gray v. Bird Son
12 So. 2d 828 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1943)
Succession of v. Lenti
134 So. 95 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
Y. M. C. A. v. City of New Orleans
123 So. 363 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)
Keife v. La Salle Realty Co.
117 So. 588 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1928)
Power v. Christina
7 La. App. 651 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co.
90 So. 666 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1922)
State v. Simpson
47 So. 622 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1908)
Johnson v. Turon
3 Teiss. 446 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1906)
Buckingham v. Negrotto
41 So. 54 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1906)
Lower Terrebonne Refining & Manufacturing Co. v. Police Jury
40 So. 443 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 So. 720, 113 La. 772, 1904 La. LEXIS 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lindner-la-1904.