Case Name: State, ex rel. James F. Ard, v. Henry H. Bankston
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1871-05
Citations: 23 La. Ann. 375
Docket Number: No. 2885
Parties: State, ex rel. James F. Ard, v. Henry H. Bankston.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 375–377

Head Matter:
No. 2885.
State, ex rel. James F. Ard, v. Henry H. Bankston.
~Wher© a case involving tlie right to office is tried in chambers and an appeal is taken by motion, in open court, citation of appeal is not necessary.
Hf the appeal bond embraces all the parties necessary to the appeal, the fact that the order of appeal fails to set out the proper parties is not good cause for dismissing the appeal.
'The failure of the order of appeal to fix a return day is not good cause for dismissing the appeal, because the fault is not attributable to the appellant.
‘The fact that the transcript was not filed until fifteen days after the judgment of the court below, in suit involving a contest for office, does not lay the foundation for a motion to dismiss the appeal.
.In a contest for oflice whore each one of the contestants holds his commission from the Governor of the State, with no evidence before the court showing that a vacancy has occurred in the office, and no evidence dehors the commissions is offered which contradicts their recitals, the contestant who holds the commission first issued will be declared entitled to continue in the office.
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court, parish of Tangipahoa.
Ellis, J. Bolivar Edwards, District Attorney, and Wilson & Perrin, for relator and appellant.
T. & J. Ellis, for defendant and •appellee.
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

Opinion:
Hqwe, J.
The defendant, appellee, has moved to dismiss this appeal on the grounds:
First — That the appeal having been taken by motion, at chambers, there is neither petition nor citation.
Second — That the order of appeal does not fix any place to which it shall be returnable, fior return day.
Third — That the record of appeal was not brought up in time (the right of oflice being involved), the judgment having been signed May 7, 1870, and the transcript filed May 23, 1870 ; and
Fourth — That the State, co-plaintiff, is not made a party to the .appeal.
The case was tried in chambers under the provisions of the intrusion :act of 1868. The court was duly open and the motion of appeal was made on the same day the judgment was read, " in open court," and jqo citation was necessary.
If it be a defect that the order does not fix a time and place, it is not attributable to the appellant.
The fact that the transact was not filed till fifteen days after judgment in the court below, does not lay a foundation for a motion to dismiss.
The State was made a party to the appeal by the appeal bond in favor of the clerk. All possible parties are brought before us in this way.
Motion to dismiss overruled.