Case ID: la_140/html/0811-01.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

(74 South. 110)
    No. 20743.
    STATE ex rel. VEITH v. CAPDEVIELLE, Auditor of Public Accounts.
    (Jan. 15, 1917.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1917.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Appeal and Error <®=380 — Undertaking on Appeal — Residence oe Surety.
    Where the surety on the appeal bond has no domicile within the jurisdiction of the court, the appeal must be dismissed, in view of Act No. 67, of 1876, requiring the surety to be domiciled within the jurisdiction of the court. ■
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2023-2028.]
    Appeal from Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge; H. F. Brunot, Judge.
    Action by the State, on relation of Phillip G. Yeith, against Paul Capdevielle, Auditor of Public Accounts. Judgment dismissing the petition, and relator apipeaM, and defendant moves to dismiss the appeal.
    Remanded for taking evidence.
    Fred G. Veith, of New Orleans, for appellant. A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen. (Vernon A. Coco, of Marksville, of counsel), for appellee.
   PROVOSTY, J.

Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the domicile of the surety on the appeal bond is not “in the jurisdiction of the court” which rendered the judgment. If such be the fact, the appeal will have to be dismissed. Act 67, p. 109, of 1876. For taking evidence on that point the case is remanded.