Case Name: LEVINGSTON SUPPLY CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1968-04-08
Citations: 216 So. 2d 158
Docket Number: No. 7334
Parties: LEVINGSTON SUPPLY CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before LANDRY, REID and BAILES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 216
Pages: 158–163

Head Matter:
LEVINGSTON SUPPLY CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 7334.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.
April 8, 1968.
On Rehearing Nov. 12, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1968.
Writ Refused Feb. 24, 1969.
Arthur C. Reuter, of Reuter, Reuter & Schott, New Orleans, for defendants and third party plaintiff-appellee.
Harvey C. Koch, of Beard, Blue, Schmitt & Treen, New Orleans, for third party defendant-appellant.
R. Boatner Howell, Jr., Baton Rouge for appellant.
Ashton L. Stewart, of Laycock & Stewart, Baton Rouge, for appellee.
Before LANDRY, REID and BAILES, JJ.

Opinion:
BAILESj Judge.
This action arises from a public school construction project in which plaintiff, a materialman, brought suit against Mickey Construction Company, Inc., (Mickey) the general contractor, American Employers' Insurance Company, (Employers') surety for the general contractor, and D & M Mechanical Contractors, Inc., (D. & M.) a subcontractor, for the price of certain plumbing and mechanical supplies and materials sold to D & M and used in the construction. Mickey and Employers filed a third party petition seeking judgment against D & M and its surety, United Bonding Insurance Company, third party defendants, for any amount for which they were held liable in the main demand. In due course the matter was tried and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the named defendants, in solido, and, in accordance with a stipulation in favor of, the third party plaintiffs against the third party defendants for the full amount claimed with legal interest and attorney fees. All defendants, in both the principal and third party actions, were granted suspensive appeals from this judgment. The appeals were answered by the plaintiff in the main demand and the third party plaintiffs.
These appeals were not perfected in a timely manner. We will note the fact on our own motion and dismiss them. At the conclusion of the trial on May 9, 1967, judgment was rendered. That judgment was read and signed on May 11, 1967. Sus-pensive appeals were granted on May 29, 1967, and bond was fixed in the sum of $48,000.00. A bond in that amount was not filed until August 17, 1967.
Though suspensive appeals were granted, it is well settled that when the appeal bond is filed too late to suspend a judgment but within the time limits for a de-volutive appeal, the appeal will be accepted and treated as devolutive. There is only-one appeal recognized by our law; time limits and bond requirements only determine the character of that appeal. Mongrue v. Lancaster, 235 La. 1002, 106 So.2d 448; Masonry Products Sales v. Gegenheimer, La.App., 199 So.2d 539. The delay for taking a devolutive appeal in this case is prescribed by LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2087(1) as ninety days from the expiration of the three day delay for applying for a new trial if no such application has been timely made. Judgment was signed on Thursday, May 11th. Notice of judgment was not required since the judgment was rendered in open court at the conclusion of the trial, LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1913. The three day delay for applying for a new trial, from which holidays must be excluded, tolled on Tuesday, May 16th. During this period no application for a new trial was made. Thereafter, appellants had ninety days or until August 14th to perfect their appeals. The appeals were not perfected within this period; the joint bond was not filed until August 17th. We are therefore without jurisdiction in the case. Orrell v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 248 La. 576, 180 So.2d 710. Moreover, since the jurisdiction of this Court never attached, the answers to the appeals are, of necessity, without effect.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Appellants are cast for all costs.
Appeals dismissed.