Keplinger v. Barrow
This text of 61 So. 217 (Keplinger v. Barrow) 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.
Opinion
In the present case the judge did not do this, but made the appeal returnable “ac•eording to law.”
The appellants asked in their application •for the appeal, which was by oral motion in ;opeu court, that it be made returnable “according to law”; that is to say, in conformity with the above-mentioned statute. That this was not done was the fault entirely of .the judge; hence it is not ground for dismissal of the appeal. State v. Augustus, 129 La. 617, 56 South. 551.
Appellee recognizes this, but contends that the appeal was filed too late in this court, •the date of its filing having been the 22d of December, 1911, whereas the 60 days, which was the longest delay allowable for the return day, expired on December 17th, the •date of the order of appeal having been •October 18, 1911.
Prior to the adoption of Act 92, p. 150, of •1900, and Act 106, p. 163, of 1908, the three ¡days of grace in question were judicial days (Lopez v. Sahuque, 114 La. 1004, 38 South. 810, and cases there cited); but interpreting said acts in the eases of Brooks v. Smith, 118 La. 758, 43 South. 399, Welch v. Smith, 118 La. 761, 43 South. 400, and Carrol v. Magee, 118 La. 761, 43 South. 400, this court held that under said acts they are ordinary days.
Adhering to this interpretation, we hold that the transcript was filed in this court too late.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 So. 217, 132 La. 244, 1913 La. LEXIS 1865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keplinger-v-barrow-la-1913.