Krieg v. Sciortino

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Krieg v. Sciortino

341 So. 2d 575, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4274

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided January 6, 1977·No. No. 8318·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Before LEMMON, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us by reason of motions to dismiss filed in behalf of plaintiff-appellee.

An examination of the record indicates that defendant-appellant did not file a verification of his answer until three days after filing the bond as security for the appeal. Thus, there was no verification in the [576] record which is properly before us on appeal, and there has been no timely compliance with the oath requirement of C.C.P. Article 4735 (see Alexander v. Williams,, La.App., 205 So.2d 456), and the suspensive appeal must be dismissed at appellant’s cost. It is so ordered.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Before LEMMON, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us by reason of motions to dismiss filed in behalf of plaintiff-appellee.

An examination of the record indicates that defendant-appellant did not file a verification of his answer until three days after filing the bond as security for the appeal. Thus, there was no verification in the [576] record which is properly before us on appeal, and there has been no timely compliance with the oath requirement of C.C.P. Article 4735 (see Alexander v. Williams,, La.App., 205 So.2d 456), and the suspensive appeal must be dismissed at appellant’s cost. It is so ordered.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Krieg v. Sciortino, 341 So. 2d 575, 1977 La. App. LEXIS 4274 (La. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

341 So. 2d 575 (Krieg v. Sciortino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related