Case Name: Mrs. Elizabeth McGuirk vs. Alfred Marchand
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1893-05
Citations: 45 La. Ann. 732
Docket Number: No. 11,159
Parties: Mrs. Elizabeth McG-uirk vs. Alfred Marchand.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 732–736

Head Matter:
No. 11,159.
Mrs. Elizabeth McG-uirk vs. Alfred Marchand.
An order granting an appeal “ on giving' bond to according law,” and without fixing any amount, can only operate as granting a suspensivo appeal,
A.bond filed “ in the sum o£-hundred dollars ” without filling in the blank might, perhaps, he considered as no bond at all; but even ii it were considered as a bond for one hundred dollars, the court retained the power to pass on its 'sufficiency for a suspensive appeal, and on finding it insufficient, to set aside the suspensive appeal, and then, on application within the delay allowed by law, to grant a devolutive appeal, and appellant, having obtained and complied with such order, is protected in his appeal.
When the husband administers the movable paraphernal property of the wife, and sells it to one who purchases in good faith, the latter will be protected from the claims of the wife on said property. She must look to her husband for reimbursement.
When a person takes property on deposit, and sets up title to the property when it is demanded, and when sued for the property alleges that it had been destroyed by fire, his unsupported declaration may be disregarded.
PPEAL from (die Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
Farrar <& Leake and F. 8. Drolla for Plaintiff and Appellee.
W. 8. Benedict and Robert G. Fugué for Defendant and Appellant:
A husband in possession who administers and controls movables belonging to his wife may sell them and receive the price.
A purchaser in good faith who pays him their full value cannot bo made to restore them or repay tlieir value to her. 19 La. 362; 8 N. S. 312, 211.
Her recourse is against her husband.
By not repudiating or objecting to the sale when she was advised of it she ratified it.
She again ratified ic when she accepted from her husband other furniture to replace it, which she afterward sold, retaining the proceeds.
Actions for damages arising ae delicto are prescribed by one year. C, O. 8336.
Ownership of movables that have not been lost or stolen is acquired by possession in good faith, during three years, under a just title. C. C. 3506, 3182,
Possession of movables (hiring ten years gives a title. O. O. 8309.
An agent is not bound to give more care to the px-opei'ty o£ his principal than to lxis own. Jle is not bound to insxire, when the mandate is gratuitous and it has been stipulated that lie woixld have to return the articles in his possession free of charge.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Fbnner, J.
The first ground of the motion is incompleteness of the transcript by reason of tbe omission therefrom of the written opinion of the court. Before submission of the motion appellant filed a certified copy of the missing document. This is sufficient, and there was no necessity for resorting to certiorari. City vs. Parlange, 25 An. 336.
The other grounds will be better understood after the following statement:
The judgment being for $2160, appellant applied for and obtained an order of appeal " on giving bond according to law." He filed a bond "in the sum of-hundred dollars," not filling in the blank before the word "hundred." Thereupon the plaintiff took a rule to show cause why execution should not issue on the ground that such a bond did nob operate to perfect a suspensive appeal. As a matter of course the rule was made absolute.
Thereupon defendant moved for a devolutive appeal, referring to the fact That the former order of appeal did nob operate as such because it did not fix the amount of the bond to be given as required by law. The court granted the order for a devolutive appeal and fixed the amount of the bond, which was accordingly given. The return day in both orders is the same and the transcript was filed in due time.
We are disposed to consider that the bond filed under the first order was no bond at all and did not operate to divest the jurisdiction of the court, in which case no question could arise as to the right of the court to grant the second order of devolutive appeal.
If, however, we should treat the first bond as one for a hundred dollars and as given for a suspensive appeal, which is the only appeal authorized by the order, the court retained the unquestioned power to pass upon the sufficiency of the bond, and, on finding it insufficient, to set aside the appeal and direct execution to issue as it did. The effect of this was to destroy the first suspensive appeal, and if, notwithstanding the order, the transcript had been brought here under that order, we should have had nothing to do but to dismiss his appeal. Baker vs. Schultz, 35 An. 524; Weiser vs. Blaese, 34 An. 833; Dumas vs. Mary, 29 An. 808; Happenbauer vs. Durlin, 23 An. 739.
It is equally well settled that the dismissal of a suspensive appeal for want of a sufficient bond does not deprive the party of the right to take a devolutive appeal thereafter. Johnson vs. Clark, 29 An. 762; Verges vs. Gonzales, 33 An. 414.
We conclude that the judge a quo had full authority, from every point of view, to grant the second order of devolutive appeal, and appellant having complied with it is fully protected.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.