Case ID: la_117/html/0153-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROYOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(41 South. 448.)
    No. 15,862.
    DAY et al. v. BAILEY et al.
    (June 4, 1906.
    Rehearing Denied June 22, 1906.)
    Injunction — Anciulakt Injunction.
    An ancillary injunction necessarily falls with the main suit.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 27, Cent. Dig. Injunction, § 392.]
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany; Thomas Moore Burns, Judge.
    Action by William G. Day and others against M. A. Bailey and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.
    Dismissed.
    See 41 South. 223, 116 La. 961.
    Gustave Lemle and Joseph Quintero Gowland, for appellants. Benjamin Moore Miller, for appellees.
   On the Merits.

PROYOSTY, J.

Plaintiff brought suit, coupled with an ancillary injunction. By an interlocutory judgment the' injunction was dissolved, and plaintiff appealed, and perfected the appeal. Later, the suit was tried on the merits, and was dismissed, and plaintiff appealed. In this court, defendant moved to dismiss both appeals, because of informalities. The court found the first appeal, that from the judgment dissolving the injunction, had been regular, and as a consequence overruled the motion to dismiss as to it, but found, on the contrary, that the other appeal, that from the judgment on the merits, was informal, and as a consequence dismissed it. The ancillary injunction comes now to be considered on the merits, and, since the suit to which it was ancillary has been dismissed, there can be done but one thing, and that is dismiss the present appeal, which has now nothing to rest on.

Appeal dismissed.