Waldmier v. Dycus

1 Teiss. 251, 1904 La. App. LEXIS 65
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 30, 1904
DocketNo. 3506
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Teiss. 251 (Waldmier v. Dycus) 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
Waldmier v. Dycus, 1 Teiss. 251, 1904 La. App. LEXIS 65 (La. Ct. App. 1904).

Opinions

ON MOTION TO DISMISS.

MOORE, J.

From a monied judgment against him for the sum of $662.50 with legal, interest thereon from judicial demand, Febuary 19th, 1903, the defendant obtained an order for a suspen-sive appeal “upon giving bond according to law”.

He furnished a bond in the sum of $1000.00 and lodged the appeal here, and its dismissal is prayed for on the ground that the bond is insufficient in amount. The motion must prevail.

To maintain an appeal as suspensive the Code (Aft 575 C. P.) requires that the appeal bond shall exceed by one half the. judgment- rendered, the interest being considered as part of thé judg-menh -

[252]*252May 30, 1904.

The principal of the judgment herein is .$662.50

5 per cent interest thereon from February 19, 1903 to May 2, 1904 day of judgment 1 year, 2 mos. and 13 days is. 38.64

Total amt of Judgment. J'Oi.14

To which add one half over and above. 350-57

Making total of.$1051.71 or $51.71 more than the bond calls for.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

Related

Littlefield v. Cowles
50 A. 737 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1901)
Hartupee v. City of Pittsburgh
19 A. 507 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1890)
Commonwealth v. Loesch
26 A. 208 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)
Wilson v. Mutual Fire Insurance
34 A. 122 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Teiss. 251, 1904 La. App. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldmier-v-dycus-lactapp-1904.