Case Name: Cleophas Comeau vs. Gottlieb Miller, Mary J. Fisher, Third Opponent
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1894-07
Citations: 46 La. Ann. 1324
Docket Number: No. 1463
Parties: Cleophas Comeau vs. Gottlieb Miller, Mary J. Fisher, Third Opponent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 1324–1332

Head Matter:
No. 1463.
Cleophas Comeau vs. Gottlieb Miller, Mary J. Fisher, Third Opponent.
1. An order oí appeal may be taken at any time within one year, to be computed from the day on which final judgment is rendered, but the appellant muslfile the transcript in the court of appeal on the return day of tlie appeal.
2. The surviving widow in necessitous circumstances may urge her preference claim for one thousand dollars by way of third opposition to executory proceedings by one of her deceased husband’s special mortgage creditors — the death having supervened pending the sale of the property.
8. The court having granted an order directing the sheriff to withhold from the proceeds of sale a sufficient amount to cover opponent’s demand, her privilege may be executed against same after the sale is made — her privilege being transferredito the proceeds of sale.
4. A mere paper assignment by third opponent of her homestead claim to her husband’s seizing creditor, without any consideration, is a nullity, and can not found any rights in his favor, and can not exclude the assertion of her rights afterward.
5. The waiver or renunciation o£ a homestead claim, it being a provision of law in favor of the destitute, is against public policy.
APPEAL from the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia. Ohappuis, J. ad hoc.
if. L. Garland for the Succession of Comeau, Appellant.
Bdw. L. Wells for Third Opponent, Appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The ground of appellee's motion is, that appellant has been guilty of laches in bringing up the appeal, not having filed the transcript of appeal in this court within one year next succeeding the signing of the judgment appealed from. Hence her averment is that the plaintiff's right of appeal lapsed. The record shows that the judgment was signed on the 16fch of June, 1893, and that the transcript was filed in this court on the 3d of July, 1894 — more than twelve months intervening between those two dates.
But in this case the judgment of the District Court did not become final until the date of the adjournment of the term on the 26th of June, 1893, and the appeal was taken by petition and citation, the judge's order having been granted on the 3d of July, 1893, making the appeal returnable to this court on the first Monday of July, 1894, and the service of the citation of appeal having been made on the 4th day of May, 1894. It was pérmissible for the court to fix the return day as he did (O. P. 583) ; and the order of appeal having been granted within one year, " computed from the day on which final judgment was rendered " (O. P. 593), it was timely.
These rules do not, however, appertain to the mode or time of lodging the transcript of appeal in this court, for the rule of law is that " the appellant must return the said petition of appeal and the transcript of the proceedings into the court of appeal on the return day thereof." C. P. 587.
The appellant has complied with the law in bringing up and filing the transcript. There is, therefore, no merit in the defendants' motion and it is denied.