Roussel v. Wilson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Roussel v. Wilson

161 So. 907, 1935 La. App. LEXIS 596

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 10, 1935

DocketNo. 16159.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 So. 907 (Roussel v. Wilson) 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

Roussel v. Wilson, 161 So. 907, 1935 La. App. LEXIS 596 (La. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter is now before us on motion to dismiss the appeal, the ground for dismissal being that the transcript was lodged too láte.

Though in the order granting the appeal, May 17, 1935, was fixed as the return day, the transcript was not filed until May 21, 1935.

By the provisions of article 883 of the Code of Practice and the interpretation which has *908 been placed thereon by the Supreme Court, there is granted to an appellant, after the return day, three days within which the transcript may be filed in the appellate court. Where the transcript is not filed before midnight of the third day after the return day, the appeal must be dismissed unless the last day is a legal holiday, in which case the appeal may be perfected on the next judicial day. See Hotard v. Consolidated Companies, Inc., 14 La. App. 670, 130 So. 662; Keplinger et al. v. Barrow, 132 La. 244, 61 So. 217; State ex rel. Bourg v. Marrero, 132 La. 109, 61 So. 136, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 783; New Iberia Nat. Bank v. Lyons et al., 164 La. 1017, 1018, 115 So. 130; Roussel v. Guiterrez, 12 La. App. 700, 127 So. 1.

Since the delay in the Hotard Case was exactly the same as that which we find here, that case is full authority for the dismissal of this appeal.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this appeal be, and it is, dismissed, at the cost of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter is now before us on motion to dismiss the appeal, the ground for dismissal being that the transcript was lodged too láte.

Though in the order granting the appeal, May 17, 1935, was fixed as the return day, the transcript was not filed until May 21, 1935.

By the provisions of article 883 of the Code of Practice and the interpretation which has *908 been placed thereon by the Supreme Court, there is granted to an appellant, after the return day, three days within which the transcript may be filed in the appellate court. Where the transcript is not filed before midnight of the third day after the return day, the appeal must be dismissed unless the last day is a legal holiday, in which case the appeal may be perfected on the next judicial day. See Hotard v. Consolidated Companies, Inc., 14 La. App. 670, 130 So. 662; Keplinger et al. v. Barrow, 132 La. 244, 61 So. 217; State ex rel. Bourg v. Marrero, 132 La. 109, 61 So. 136, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 783; New Iberia Nat. Bank v. Lyons et al., 164 La. 1017, 1018, 115 So. 130; Roussel v. Guiterrez, 12 La. App. 700, 127 So. 1.

Since the delay in the Hotard Case was exactly the same as that which we find here, that case is full authority for the dismissal of this appeal.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this appeal be, and it is, dismissed, at the cost of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 907, 1935 La. App. LEXIS 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roussel-v-wilson-lactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack