Case ID: la_124/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(50 South. 590.)
    No. 17,883.
    FRISCOVILLE REALTY CO. v. POLICE JURY OF PARISH OF ST. BERNARD. In re FRISCOVILLE REALTY CO.
    (Oct. 18, 1909.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 361*) — Suspensive Appeal-Application.
    Since proceedings in the district courts are required to be in writing, a verbal application over the telephone for a suspensive appeal cannot serve as the basis of a proceeding in the Supreme Court to compel the judge to grant the appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 361.*]
    Action by the Priscoville Realty Company against the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Bernard. On an order denying plaintiff’s application for a suspensive appeal from an ex parte order dissolving an injunction on bond, he applies for mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition to require the granting of such appeal.
    Application denied.
    Oliver S. Livaudais and Fred A. Ahrens, for relator. P. Estopinal and N. H. Nunez, for respondent.
   PROVOSTY, J.

Relator applies for a mandamus directing the judge of the lower court to grant him a suspensive appeal from an ex parte order dissolving an injunction on bond. Relator alleges that its application for the appeal was made over the telephone. This allegation is fatal to the application. Proceedings in the district courts must be in writing, and an application for appeal made verbally (and still loss by telephone) cannot serve as the basis for a proceeding in this court.

The application of relator is rejected at its cost.