Smith v. Phillips

122 So. 126, 168 La. 406, 1928 La. LEXIS 2100
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedOctober 29, 1928
DocketNo. 29416.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 122 So. 126 (Smith v. Phillips) 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
Smith v. Phillips, 122 So. 126, 168 La. 406, 1928 La. LEXIS 2100 (La. 1928).

Opinions

O’NIELL, O. J.

There is a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the bond is not signed by any one as surety. Although there are three persons named as sureties in the bond, it is signed only by the appellants. Immediately below their signatures is an affidavit, signed by the three persons named in the bond as sureties, in which affidavit they say “that the surety on the above bond is worth the amount of same over and above all legal exemptions.” It can hardly be doubted that the signers of the affidavit, being named in the bond as the sureties, intended that their signatures should apply to the bond, as well as to the affidavit. It is therefore a matter of no importance that the signatures of the sureties on the bond are not in a more appropriate place. Iowa Cord Tire Co. v. Cheape, 162 La. 935, 111 So. 333. Even if this defect in the appeal bond was originally serious, the appellee’s complaint about it comes too late. Act 112 of 1916, § 9, p. 241, declares that no appeal shall be dismissed “on account of any error in the amount of the bond, or for any inaccuracy or omission in the bond; or for the insufficiency of any surety, or sureties, on said bond,” unless the appellant shall have failed to correct the error, inaccuracy or omission, or to furnish a supplemental or additional bond, or surety or sureties, within two days after the appellee has filed a motion therefor, in the court of original jurisdiction, as provided in the second and third sections of the act. No such motion was filed or opportunity given, in this case. We would have no authority, therefore, to dismiss this appeal, even if we believed that the sureties named in the bond were not bound as sureties by their signatures under their affidavit.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

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

Related

Lisi Realty, Inc. v. Plaisance
306 So. 2d 920 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1975)
Henry Waters Truck & Tractor Co., Inc. v. Relan
277 So. 2d 463 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1973)
Green v. Jefferson Truck Service, Inc.
274 So. 2d 396 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1973)
B & R Construction Co. v. Duvigneaud
168 So. 2d 468 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Anagnosti v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co.
52 So. 2d 875 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1951)
C. I. T. Corporation v. Sautbine
1936 OK 197 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Irish Levy Electric Co. v. Moss
147 So. 22 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
Sliman v. Mayor and Board, Palmetto
142 So. 846 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)
Garland v. Keen
137 So. 343 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)
Smith v. Phillips
131 So. 23 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 So. 126, 168 La. 406, 1928 La. LEXIS 2100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-phillips-la-1928.