Case Name: Edward and Emma Thomas vs. Numa Bienvenu. Aug. Maraist, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-07
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 936
Docket Number: No. 1189
Parties: Edward and Emma Thomas vs. Numa Bienvenu. Aug. Maraist, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 936–938

Head Matter:
No. 1189.
Edward and Emma Thomas vs. Numa Bienvenu. Aug. Maraist, Intervenor.
Where an appeal bond was given for the amount prescribed in tlie order for a suspensive appeal, and was filed within the time prescribed for such appeal, it is a good bond for a suspensive appeal, though it is recited in the body of the bond “that an appeal, suspensive or devolutive, was granted,” and it is not stated for which appeal the bond was given.
Where an administrator suffers a valuable plantation, mortgaged to the succession, to be sold for taxes for a nominal sum and buys it in through one of the heirs interposed, who subsequently sells it, but the entire price—cash and credit-goes into hands of the adminis' trator, such purchase and sale enures to the benefit of the succession. And where two of the notes representing part of the price are delivered by the administrator to an heir who sues thereon, a creditor of the succession may intervene and have said notes declared the property of the succession.
APPEAL from tlie Twenty-first District Court, Parisli of St. Martin. Fontelieu, J.
Mowton & Martin for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Felix Voorhies for Intervenor and Appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
This motion is based on an alleged irregularity in the appeal bond.
It is contended that it is a bond in the alternative for a suspensive or a devolutive appeal; that this is-shown by a recital in the bond in these words: " Prom -which said judgment Edward and Emma Thomas have prayed for a suspensive and, in the alternative, for a devolutive appeal."
The bond is for the amount fixed for a suspensive appeal •, it was filed within the time prescribed for such appeal, and it was evidently intended to further such appeal, and complies in its conditions and time of filing with the order therefor.
The motion is, therefore, denied.