Succession of Richardson

26 La. Ann. 187
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided March 15, 1874·No. No. 5106·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

WxLt, J.

The motion to dismiss this appeal because the opponents, who are the appellants, have not given bond, must prevail. The only bond we find in the record is subscribed by M. McQueen, as principal, and Charles B. Austin, as security.

It is not necessary that the appellant should sign the appeal bond; but an appeal granted to Elizabeth McQueen and others can not be perfected by an appeal bond signed by M. McQueen, as principal, and Charles B. Austin, as security. The surety of M. McQueen can not be regarded as the surety of Elizabeth McQueen.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

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

Succession of Richardson, 26 La. Ann. 187 (La. 1874).

26 La. Ann. 187 (Succession of Richardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Government Employees Insurance v. Thompson
347 So. 2d 1196 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1977)
Braun v. Veillon
117 So. 719 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1928)
United Railway Men's Oil Ass'n v. Dupuy
137 So. 73 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)