Case Name: BLANKS et al. v. LEPHIEW et al. (two cases)
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-03-03
Citations: 132 La. 545
Docket Number: Nos. 19,392, 19,393
Parties: BLANKS et al. v. LEPHIEW et al. (two cases).
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 546–562

Head Matter:
(61 South. 615.)
Nos. 19,392, 19,393.
BLANKS et al. v. LEPHIEW et al. (two cases).
(March 3, 1913.
Rehearing Denied March 31, 1913.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Appeal and Erbor (§ 395*) — Dismissal-Grounds.
Where the trial judge fixes the amount of the appeal bond at too low a figure, the appellee should apply for an increase, and, in case of refusal, seek relief in the appellate court by an appropriate writ, instead of moving to dismiss the appeal.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2058, 2064-2070, 2085, 2086, 3127; Dec. Dig. § 395.*]
2. Appearance (§ 19*) — Waiver op Objections.
Defendant waived his exceptions to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that he was a nonresident, and that no property of his had been attached, by appearing generally without reserving his exception and instituting by way of reconvention a suit in damages.
LEd. Note. — For other cases, see Appearance, Cent. Dig. §§ 79-82, 84-90; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]
3. Loos and Logging (§ 3*) — Sales of Standing Timber — Construction of Contract.
A contract providing that the owners of standing timber thereby sold it to defendants for $3.50 a thousand feet, the quantity to be estimated by experts, and that, after paying $8,-000, defendants might relieve themselves of all further liability, except for timber already cut or deadened by paying $500, subsequently modified to provide that the quantity of timber should be ascertained by the number of shingles manufactured from it, was a sale of the timber and made defendants liable for the contract price, since, while the original contract had no binding-force as either party could have nullified it by declining to appoint an expert, this defect was cured by the supplemental contract, and defendant’s privilege of retiring-from the contract by paying $500 was merely a resolutory condition which, as expressly provided in Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2045, did not suspend the contract or prevent it from having full effect.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Logs and Logging, Cent. Dig. §§ 6-12; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]
4. Bills and Notes (§ 519*) — Actions—Sufficiency of Evidence.
In an action on a note given by a purchaser of standing timber to the seller, evidence held to show that the note was intended as a binding obligation, and not merely to aid the seller in raising money for the use of the purchaser in carrying out his contract, as claimed by him.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 1802; Dec. Dig. § 519.*]
5. Bills and Notes (§ 451*) — Action on Note — Inconsistency of Conduct and Claims.
Where a purchaser of standing timber who was in default in making payments under the contract gave a note to the seller, agreeing at the same time to immediately make shipments of shingles in part payment of the note, the acceptance by the seller of the invoices of such shipments bearing the indorsement, “Please credit my timber contract,” did not estop the seller from thereafter relying on the note; the indorsement not being such a repudiation of the note and reliance on the original contract as to have that effect.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1342,. 1343, 1365, 1366; Dec. Dig. § 451.*]
Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Union; R.. B. Dawkins, Judge.
Two actions by J. P. Blanks and others against W. H. Lephiew and others. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed, and judgment rendered for plaintiffs.
Clifton Mathews, óf Ruston, and Sam T. Poe, of Little Rock, Ark. (H. Flood Madison, of Bastrop, of counsel), for appellants. James C. Knox, of Monticello, Ark., and Harvey G. Fields and J. Burrough Crow, curator ad hoc, both of Farmersville, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PROVOSTY, J.
Motion is made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judge fixed the amount of the appeal bond at too low a figure.
A similar motion to dismiss was disposed of by this court in Hughes v. Caruthers, 26 La. Ann. 530, thus briefly:
"The bond is for the amount fixed by the judge. It is therefore sufficient to maintain the appeal."
The remedy of the appellee in case the bond has been fixed too low is to apply to the trial court for an increase; and, in case of refusal, to seek relief in the appellate court by appropriate writ.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.