Case Name: Hugo Redwitz vs. E. Waggaman, Shf., et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 100
Docket Number: No. 6640
Parties: Hugo Redwitz vs. E. Waggaman, Shf., et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Unreported cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, from January 8, 1877, to April, 1880
Volume: 1
Pages: 100–100

Head Matter:
No. 6640.
Hugo Redwitz vs. E. Waggaman, Shf., et als.
No citation or other notice need be given when the appeal is taken by motion in open court.
II the appeal bond does not cover the whole judgment, where it is for money and also for the delivery of perishable movables of a given estimated value.it will beinsuffi-i cient for a suspensive appeal, and if no sum has been prescribed by the judge in the order of appeal, the bond of whatever amount will not support a devolutive appeal.
Appeal from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans. Rogers, J.
E. Philips for Plaintiff. Ferguson for Defendants and Appellants.

Opinion:
Manning, C. J.
The plaintiff and appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on four grounds:—
1. That he has never been cited to answer the appeal as required by law.
The appeal was by written motion in open court, and no citation or other notice was necessary.
2. That no legal bond has been given by appellants.
3. That the bond is insufficient in amount.
The objection to the bond consists in this, that the judgment being for $393 in money, and for the delivery of movables of a perishable nature of the value of $2,500, and thé order of the court being for a suspensive appeal 11 on giving bond conditioned according to law in the sum of-dollars returnable" etc., that the bond must be for a sum exceeding by one-half the estimated value of the movables, and the moneyed judgment. The bond is for two thousand dollars, and is evidently graduated by the moneyed judgment. It does not fulfil the condition required by the law. Code of Practice, Arts. 575-6.
4. That no sum having been prescribed by the judge, the bond is not good for a devolutive appeal.
This objection is also well founded, and the bond not being good for either kind of appeal, the motion must prevail.
Appeal dismissed.