Legget v. Potter

9 La. Ann. 309
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMay 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 9 La. Ann. 309 (Legget v. Potter) 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
Legget v. Potter, 9 La. Ann. 309 (La. 1854).

Opinion

Campbell, J.

On the 1st of December, 1853, final judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs.

On the next day, defendant applied for and obtained a devolutive appeal.

The day following, (December 3d) plaintiffs issued execution.

On the 6th of the same month, defendant took a rule on plaintiffs to show cause why the execution should not be quashed, on the ground that it was prematurely issued, and the rule having been made absolute, plaintiffs appealed.

The question presented is, whether (the case being appealable) plaintiffs were warranted in issuing execution until after the expiration of ten days from the notification of judgment?

The act was manifestly irregular, unless by taking a devolutive appeal, defendant is to be regarded as having waived the delay. The object of the delay is, that the party against whom judgment has been rendered, may have time to consider whether or not he will take a suspensive appeal, and, in case he shall do so, to allow him a reasonable time to procure his security, and do such other acts as may be necessary. This reasonable time is ten days. It is for the benefit of the judgment debtor; but like any other privilege, may be waived; and this waiver, together with the waiver of a suspensive appeal, we think was virtually made, when defendant obtained his devolutive appeal. The appeal was granted and the appellee duly cited ; and it is well settled, that by the fact of citation, the jurisdiction of the appellate court attaches, and that of the District Court is, except for certain special purposes, divested. See Hen. Dig. p. 73, verbo Appeal, vii, No. 8, and the authorities there cited. Nor could the appellant, under these circumstances, dismiss the appeal, without the consent of the appellee.

The conclusion to which we have arrived, is supported by the ruling of the court in Hatch v. English, 12 R. 136, in which it was held, that though a defendant, against whom afi. fa. has issued, before notice ofjudgment, may have it quashed, and a suspensive appeal allowed ; yet, if he contents himself with taking a devolutive appeal only, he cannot afterwards complain.

It is for these reasons, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District court, be annulled and reversed; and that there be judgment in favor of the appellant, discharging the rule and reinstating the execution. The costs of both courts to be paid by appellee.

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

Related

Haas v. Buck
162 So. 181 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1935)
Quenqui v. Reliance Homestead Ass'n.
133 So. 382 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)
Orlando v. Reliance Homestead Ass'n.
132 So. 777 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)
Martel v. Rovira
8 La. App. 385 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
State ex rel. Gruner v. Drew
8 La. App. 6 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
Denny v. Jefferson Const. Co.
114 So. 650 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Alfano v. Franek
105 So. 598 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1925)
Mundy v. Phillips
102 So. 519 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 La. Ann. 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/legget-v-potter-la-1854.