Case ID: la_122/html/0433-01.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

South. 758.)
    No. 17,135.
    BOUDREAUX et al. v. BOUDREAUX.
    (Dec. 14, 1908.)
    1. Appeal and Ebbor (§ 627*) — Dismissal-Failure to Pile Transcript.
    Where a transcript was filed more than three days after the return day, it must, uMder Gode Prac. art. 594, be dismissed on motion.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig § 2746; Dec. Dig. § 627.*]
    2. Appeal and Ebbor (§ 797*) — Dismissal-Motion.
    A motion to dismiss, based on a tardy filing of the transcript, need not be filed within three days following such filing.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3153; Dec. Dig. § 797.*]
    Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Martin; James Simon, Judge.
    Action by Olympe Boudreaux and others against Sylvain Boudreaux. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
    Dismissed.
    Daspit & De La Houssaye, for appellants. Martin, Yoorhies & Martin, for appellee.
   On- Motion to Dismiss.

PROYOSTY, J.

The transcript having been filed more than three days after the return day, and there being a motion to dismiss, the appeal must, be dismissed. Code Prac. art. 594; Laussade v. Maury, 31 La. Ann. 858.

The motion to dismiss was filed more than three days after the filing of the transcript; but a motion to dismiss, based on the tardy filing of the transcript, need not be filed within the three days following the filing of the transcript. Hudson v. Garrett, Sheriff, 47 La. Ann. 1534, 18 South. 510.

Appeal dismissed.