Morgan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Morgan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

338 So. 2d 931, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 4360

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

DocketNo. 11054

StatusPublished

This text of 338 So. 2d 931 (Morgan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 So. 2d 931, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 4360 (La. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLIS, Judge:

ON RULE TO DISMISS APPEAL

On April 2, 1976, summary judgment was granted dismissing plaintiff’s suit as to Aet-na Casualty & Surety Company. On June 29, 1976, plaintiff was granted a devolutive appeal to this court, returnable on July 30, 1976. On July 27, 1976, the appeal bond was filed. We issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the appeal bond was not timely filed.

Allowing for the seven day delay for applying for a new trial provided by Article 1974 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and the 90 day delay thereafter for perfecting the devolutive appeal, provided by Article 2087 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the last day for filing the appeal bond was July 13, 1976. The bond in this case was not filed until two weeks thereafter and we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Cocreham, 251 La. 705, 206 So.2d 79 (1968).

Plaintiff argues that the bond was timely filed because it was filed prior to the return date. The argument is without merit. The return date fixed by the trial court, under Article 2125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has no effect on the delays for perfecting the appeal provided by Article 2087 thereof. See Guidry v. Canal Insurance Co., 313 So.2d 858 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974).

The appeal is dismissed, at plaintiff’s cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

ELLIS, Judge:

ON RULE TO DISMISS APPEAL

On April 2, 1976, summary judgment was granted dismissing plaintiff’s suit as to Aet-na Casualty & Surety Company. On June 29, 1976, plaintiff was granted a devolutive appeal to this court, returnable on July 30, 1976. On July 27, 1976, the appeal bond was filed. We issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the appeal bond was not timely filed.

Allowing for the seven day delay for applying for a new trial provided by Article 1974 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and the 90 day delay thereafter for perfecting the devolutive appeal, provided by Article 2087 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the last day for filing the appeal bond was July 13, 1976. The bond in this case was not filed until two weeks thereafter and we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Cocreham, 251 La. 705, 206 So.2d 79 (1968).

Plaintiff argues that the bond was timely filed because it was filed prior to the return date. The argument is without merit. The return date fixed by the trial court, under Article 2125 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has no effect on the delays for perfecting the appeal provided by Article 2087 thereof. See Guidry v. Canal Insurance Co., 313 So.2d 858 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974).

The appeal is dismissed, at plaintiff’s cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 So. 2d 931, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 4360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-lactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack