Mitchell v. Lay

4 La. Ann. 514
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided October 15, 1849·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

The order of appeal was granted upon motion, and in general terms. It must be considered as embracing not only the plaintiff in the cause, but also the sureties in the injunction bond, who, by a fiction of law (Statute of 1831,) are parties plaintiffs in the injunction. The appeal being ordered upon motion, the sureties are to be considered as having been cited as appellees. Act [515] of 1843, p. 40. Isabella v. Picot, 2 An. 390. If the appeal bond was informal in naming their principal only as obligee, upon which point we express no opinion, it was an informality which should have been suggested at an earlier day, and cannot now be noticed, See O'Reilly v. McLeod, 2 An. 138.

It is, therefore, ordered that, the decree against the sureties, Ryan and Newhurger, remain undisturbed.

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

Mitchell v. Lay, 4 La. Ann. 514 (La. 1849).

4 La. Ann. 514 (Mitchell v. Lay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elliott v. Heard
46 So. 2d 249 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1950)
Bannister v. Chisesi Longo
5 So. 2d 145 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1941)
Succession of Uthoff
200 So. 290 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1941)
Esparros v. Vicknair
184 So. 745 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1938)
Jackson v. Jackson
163 So. 175 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
Sammons v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.
79 So. 320 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1916)
In re Lindner
37 So. 720 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1904)