Taylor v. Pipes

24 La. Ann. 551
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided July 15, 1872·No. No. 284·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

Wyly, J.

A motion is made to dismiss this appeal:

First — Because the amount of the bond is not sufficient for a suspensive appeal.

Second — Because only one of the defendants in solido has appealed.

Third — Bt cause tile clerk’s certificate to the transcript is not sufficient.

The bond, being for the amount fixed by the judge, is good for a ¡devolutive appeal, if it is not sufficient for a suspensive appeal.

As the appeal was taken by motion in open court and the bond given in favor of the clerk, all the necessary parties are before the court.

The certificate of the clerk we consider sufficient; besides, if insufficient, it is no ground'to dismiss the appeal, the fault being attributable ¡to the clerk.

The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

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

Taylor v. Pipes, 24 La. Ann. 551 (La. 1872).

24 La. Ann. 551 (Taylor v. Pipes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lotz v. Iberville Bank & Trust Co.
146 So. 155 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Cohn Flour & Feed Co.
135 So. 385 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)
Jefferson v. Stringfellow
86 So. 774 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1920)
Simpson v. Bulkley
73 So. 691 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1916)
Fontelieu v. Fontelieu
41 So. 120 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1906)
Feely v. Purves
2 McGl. 369 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1884)