Mount Olive Baptist Church v. New Zion Baptist Church

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Mount Olive Baptist Church v. New Zion Baptist Church

5 So. 2d 144, 198 La. 896, 1941 La. LEXIS 1176

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 3, 1941

DocketNo. 35881.

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 5 So. 2d 144 (Mount Olive Baptist Church v. New Zion Baptist Church) 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

Mount Olive Baptist Church v. New Zion Baptist Church, 5 So. 2d 144, 198 La. 896, 1941 La. LEXIS 1176 (La. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, Chief Justice. ,

The appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not filed within the year after the judgment was signed. The appeal was asked for and granted before the year had expired, but the bond which was required by the order granting the appeal was not filed until several days after the year had expired. We are obliged therefore to dismiss the appeal. The time limit of one year, allowed by article 593 of the Code of Practice, for the taking of a devolutive appeal, is the limit of time in which the taking of the appeal must be completed by the filing of the appeal bond, in cases where a bond is required by law and by the order granting the appeal, as in this case. Marigny v. Stanley, 2 La. 322; Sibley v. Roman Catholic Church Congregation, 3 Rob. 77; City Bank v. Kent, 7 Rob. 60; Mayer v. Prudhomme, 1 La.Ann. 230; Brickell v. Conner, 10 La.Ann. 235; Hall v. Beggs, 17 La.Ann. 238; Wood v. Calloway, 21 La.Ann. 481; Higgins v. Haley, 28 La.Ann. 216, 217; Untereiner v. Miller, 29 La.Ann. 435; Ulman & Co. v. Briggs, Payne & Co., 32 La.Ann. 655; Reed v. His Creditors, 37 La.Ann. 907; People’s Bank of Elton v. Arceneaux, 134 La. 292, 64 So. 116; Hyman v. Veith, 142 La. 933, 77 So. 854; Lafayette v. Farr, 162 La. 385, 110 So. 624; Succession of Dahm, 166 La. 774, 117 So. 826.

It was decided in Untereiner v. Miller, 29 La.Ann. 435, and affirmed in Lafayette v. Farr, 162 La. 385, 110 So. 624, that the declaration in article 593 of the Code of Practice, that “no appeal will lie *900 * * * after a year has expired”, is so imperative that the appellate court has not jurisdiction over a case where the appeal bond was not filed within the year after the judgment was signed, and that the court therefore must dismiss the appeal on its own motion, in such a case, even though the parties to the suit have given their consent to the appellate court’s deciding the case on its merits. A similar ruling was made in Higgins v. Haley, 28 La.Ann. 216. In the light of these decisions it is a matter of no importance that the attorney representing the appellee in the present case gave his consent in writing to an extension of the time allowed in the order of appeal for the appellant to file the record or transcript in this court.

The appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.

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

O’NIELL, Chief Justice. ,

The appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not filed within the year after the judgment was signed. The appeal was asked for and granted before the year had expired, but the bond which was required by the order granting the appeal was not filed until several days after the year had expired. We are obliged therefore to dismiss the appeal. The time limit of one year, allowed by article 593 of the Code of Practice, for the taking of a devolutive appeal, is the limit of time in which the taking of the appeal must be completed by the filing of the appeal bond, in cases where a bond is required by law and by the order granting the appeal, as in this case. Marigny v. Stanley, 2 La. 322; Sibley v. Roman Catholic Church Congregation, 3 Rob. 77; City Bank v. Kent, 7 Rob. 60; Mayer v. Prudhomme, 1 La.Ann. 230; Brickell v. Conner, 10 La.Ann. 235; Hall v. Beggs, 17 La.Ann. 238; Wood v. Calloway, 21 La.Ann. 481; Higgins v. Haley, 28 La.Ann. 216, 217; Untereiner v. Miller, 29 La.Ann. 435; Ulman & Co. v. Briggs, Payne & Co., 32 La.Ann. 655; Reed v. His Creditors, 37 La.Ann. 907; People’s Bank of Elton v. Arceneaux, 134 La. 292, 64 So. 116; Hyman v. Veith, 142 La. 933, 77 So. 854; Lafayette v. Farr, 162 La. 385, 110 So. 624; Succession of Dahm, 166 La. 774, 117 So. 826.

It was decided in Untereiner v. Miller, 29 La.Ann. 435, and affirmed in Lafayette v. Farr, 162 La. 385, 110 So. 624, that the declaration in article 593 of the Code of Practice, that “no appeal will lie *900 * * * after a year has expired”, is so imperative that the appellate court has not jurisdiction over a case where the appeal bond was not filed within the year after the judgment was signed, and that the court therefore must dismiss the appeal on its own motion, in such a case, even though the parties to the suit have given their consent to the appellate court’s deciding the case on its merits. A similar ruling was made in Higgins v. Haley, 28 La.Ann. 216. In the light of these decisions it is a matter of no importance that the attorney representing the appellee in the present case gave his consent in writing to an extension of the time allowed in the order of appeal for the appellant to file the record or transcript in this court.

The appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 So. 2d 144, 198 La. 896, 1941 La. LEXIS 1176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-olive-baptist-church-v-new-zion-baptist-church-la-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack