Case Name: CAHN et al. v. BACCICH & DE MONTLUZIN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1915-04-12
Citations: 144 La. 1023
Docket Number: No. 21194
Parties: CAHN et al. v. BACCICH & DE MONTLUZIN.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., concurs in the decree, but not in the suggestion that there was turpitude in the agreement between De Montluzin and Danziger.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 1023–1033

Head Matter:
(81 South. 696)
No. 21194.
CAHN et al. v. BACCICH & DE MONTLUZIN.
(April 12, 1915.
On the Merits, Dec. 2, 1918. On Rehearing, May 9, 1919.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Appeal and Error <&wkey;393 — Bond — Devolutive and Suspensive Appeal.
Where the appellants obtained an order for both a devolutive and a suspensive appeal, and the bond ior the devolutive appeal was'fixed at $100, and for the suspensive appeal according to law, and the appellants gave bond and security for $4,000, held, that the bond, though not good for a suspensive, was amply good for a devolutive, appeal, and that the obtainment by appellants of a subsequent order for a devolutive appeal, and the giving of two bonds to perfect the same, were mere surplusage.
On the Merits.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
2. Contracts <&wkey;140 — Stirling Bidding — Subsequent Contract.
Where at judicial sale bidding was stifled by agreement between one bidder and agent of another that they should not bid further against each other, but should match a coin to determine who should have the property at the price then bid, the winner to pay the loser a certain consideration, the principals of such agent, to whom the property was adjudicated at the sale, and who thereafter, learning of their agent’s agreement, ratified it, and in pursuance thereof transferred their adjudication of the auctioned property to the other bidder, who had won the coin matching contest, on the latter’s agreement to deliver the promised consideration, were entitled to recover such consideration; such principals not having been present or participating in the illegal combination, but merely ratifying their agent’s agreement.
Monroe, C. J., and Sommerville, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.
Action by Bertrand I. Cahu and others against Baccich & De Montluzin. Judgment for plaintiffs,. and defendants appeal.
Motion to dismiss sustained as to the suspensive appeal, but overruled as to the devolutive appeal, and judgment affirmed.
Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellants.
E. Howard McCaleb and Titehe & Rogers, all of New Orleans, for appellees.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
Plaintiffs on January 27, 1915, recovered judgment in the court below against the defendants for the sum of $2,500, with legal interest thereon from December 7, 1912, and costs.
Defendants moved for and were granted a devolutive and a suspensive appeal from the judgment, and. the bond fcjr the devolütive appeal was fixed at $100, and that for a suspensive appeal was fixed according to law. Defendants furnished bond and security in the sum of $4,000. Later the defendants obtained another order for a devolutive appeal, and filed two appeal bonds for $100 each.
Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds:
That the bond for $4,000 is inadequate for a suspensive appeal.
That appellants have abandoned the devolutive appeal which they might have taken under the first motion and order, and have attempted to obtain a second order of appeal, and the court a quo was without jurisdiction to grant the second order of appeal.
That the transcript for the second order of appeal is incomplete. >
That there is no bond to which appellees can look for their surety, as there are two bonds given for the so-called devolutive appeal, and neither is designated as the bond to which appellees may look.
The bond for $4,000, though not good for a suspensive, is good for a devolutive, appeal. Gilmore v. Meeker, 115 La. 849, 40 South. 244. The appeal having been perfected by the giving of the first bond, the subsequent proceedings were superfluous.
It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss be sustained as to the suspensive, but he overruled as to the devolutive, appeal.