Case Name: Philip Marsoudet vs. Mary Clancy
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 38
Docket Number: No. 6524
Parties: Philip Marsoudet vs. Mary Clancy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Unreported cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, from January 8, 1877, to April, 1880
Volume: 1
Pages: 38–41

Head Matter:
No. 6524.
Philip Marsoudet vs. Mary Clancy.
The signature oí the clerk of the lower court to his certificate of the record of appeal may be added even after a motion to dismiss for want of his signature.
The term of the District Court of the Parish of Orleans, of general jurisdiction, begins on the first Monday of November, and ends on the 4th of July following.
The application for an appeal, and the filing of the proper bond within ten days after-judgment signed, entitle a party to a suspensive appeal, although the order of appeal may not be granted until several days thereafter.
where property of a third party has been seized to satisfy a judgment, it is the value of the property, and not the amount of the judgment, which determines the amount in dispute.
The transcript of appeal is the only source of information to which this court will refer, as to what was offered in evidence below.
The usufruct of a succession, like an interest therein of an heir, may be seized and sold by a creditor of the usufructuary, even though the succession be insolvent.
No legal action to enforce a legal right can give rise to a claim for damages.
A party cannot, in his representative capacity, injoin the sale of his individual property.
Appeal from the Fifth. District Court of New Orleans. Cullom, J.
G. Schmidt for Plaintiff Appellant. Baker for Defendant.
On motion to dismiss.

Opinion:
Manning, C. J.
There are five grounds taken: 1, that no tran-J script was filed as required; 2, the appeal could have been taken onl-M by petition; 3, the delay for a suspensive appeal had expired ai4B there was no order for a devolutive appeal; 4, the amount in dispute is less than the appealable sum; 5, the transcript is incomplete.
1. The transcript apparently fulfills all legal requirements. Appellee informs us by affidavit that the clerk's certificate was not signed when he made his motion to dismiss. Appellant informs us in the same way that as soon as he was apprised of the omission, he had it supplied. The appellant should not suffer for the clerk's negligence.
2. The judgment was signed December 19, 1876. The motion for appeal was made in open court January 2d following, and was, therefore, made at the same term at which the judgment was rendered.
3. The court prescribed the amount of the appeal bond on motion of the appellant, and it was given and filed December 28, the day the motion for appeal was made. The order of appeal was not made until January 2d. The order was in time.
4. The amount in dispute is the value of the usufruct under seizure and not the amount of the judgment to satisfy which the sale of the usufruct is to be made. That value is ostensibly more than $500.
5. If there is any incompleteness of the record, it is not made apparent.
Motion refused.