Case Name: NEELY v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1916-12-11
Citations: 145 La. 671
Docket Number: Nos. 22108 (and 21527)
Parties: NEELY v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 671–677

Head Matter:
(82 South. 745)
Nos. 22108 (and 21527).
NEELY v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.
(Dec. 11, 1916.
On the Merits, June 30, 1919.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Appeal and Eeeoe <&wkey;>14(l) — Appeal Bond — Devolutive Appeal — 'Validity.
Where an order for a devolutive and suspensive appeal was granted conditioned upon the appellant furnishing a bond with good and solvent security in the sum of $250, and an appeal bond in said amount was furnished by the appellant, and thereafter the appellee moved the court below to set aside said bond on the ground of the insolvency and insufficiency of the surety, which motion was overruled by the trial judge, but on appeal was sustained by the Supreme Court; and where, pending such litigation, the appellant obtained another order for a devolutive appeal, which he perfected by giving bond and filing the transcript in the Supreme Court, held, that the first appeal never became operative, and the appellant had the right under the new order to prosecute his devolutive appeal.
On the Merits.
2. Caeeiers <&wkey;213 — Siiipeeb’s Change or Route — Damages—Liability.
Where traffic over the direct line.of a railroad is rendered impossible by the submergence of part of the road, as the result of a crevasse, and a shipper of cattle directs that they be sent by a circuitous and longer route, he has no just cause of complaint that their transportation requires more time, and that they are more “drawn” upon their delivery than they would have been if carried by the shorter route.
3. Evidence <&wkey;477(5), 568(1) — Opinion — Live Stock — Damages.
Where cattle have not been weighed either when shipped or when delivered, a witness who sees them only when delivered is in no position to testify that they have lost any specific weight in their transit, and his opinion that they look jmore drawn than they should is not sufficiently definite, either as to the cause or the extent of the loss of weight, to authorize a judgment for damages to be computed on that basis.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.
Action by Jeff D. Neely against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff obtained an order for devolutive appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Prowell & Prowell and Callan, Blanchard & Viosca, all of New Orleans, for appellant.
Howe, Fenner, Spencer & Cocke, of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
This is the second appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment in favor of the defendant.
The motion to dismiss was on the ground that the first appeal, pending in this court, divested the court below of jurisdiction to grant another appeal.
It appears from the record of case No.' 21527 of the docket of this court (140 La. 445, 73 South. 262), that a recent decree has been rendered, dismissing the first appeal on the ground of the insufficiency of the surety on the appeal bond.
The first order of appeal was for a devolu tive and suspensive appeal, conditioned upon plaintiff furnishing bond with good and solvent security in the sum of $250.
As the bond was furnished within ten days after the judgment was signed, it was suspensive in its character.
Defendant moved the trial court to set aside this bond on thé ground that the surety was insolvent and insufficient.
This motion was overruled, whereupon the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court (140 La. 445, 73 South. 262), which reversed the ruling and sustained the motion.
In the meantime the plaintiff within the year had obtained another order for a devolutive appeal, and furnished bond in the sum fixed by the court.
The first order of appeal became inoperative from the mere failure of the plaintiff to furnish a bond with good and solvent security, and the plaintiff had the legal right to obtain the order for a devolutive appeal. See Meeker v. Galpin, 4 Bob. 259, cited in Barrow v. Clack, 45 La. Ann. 482, 12 South. 631. See, also, Durel v. Murphy, 124 La. 157, 49 South. 1013.
In the instant case a new order of appeal was taken as suggested in Durel v. Murphy, supra.
The new order of appeal may have waived the first order of appeal, but the latter, never operative in law, did not prevent the plaintiff from taking an appeal according to law.
The cases cited by counsel for the defendant have been considered, but we do not think that they are applicable to the case before the court.
Motion to dismiss overruled.