Case Name: HELMAS et ux. v. PAILET; HEALY v. SAME
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1910-02-14
Citations: 126 La. 497
Docket Number: No. 18,053
Parties: HELMAS et ux. v. PAILET. HEALY v. SAME.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 126
Pages: 497–501

Head Matter:
(52 South. 676.)
No. 18,053.
HELMAS et ux. v. PAILET. HEALY v. SAME.
(Feb. 14, 1910.
On the Merits, June 6, 1910.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Time (§ 10*) — Suspensive Appeal — Time op Taking — Excluding Sundays.
A suspensive appeal must be taken within 10 days, excluding Sundays, and as the appeal in this case .was within that period it was timely, and the motion to dismiss must be overruled.
[Ed. Note'. — For other cases, see Time, Cent. Dig. § 48; Dec. Dig. § 10.*]
2. Landlord and Tenant (§ 132*) — Repair op Premises — Rights op Tenant.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for inconvenience and loss, resulting, as they allege, from the unauthorized invasion, for the purpose of making alterations and repairs, of premises occupied by them as tenants.
Held, that they were subjected to some inconvenience, but to no loss ; that the inconvenience resulted from a misapprehension for which they were as much to blame as defendant; and that the jury and the judge a quo did substantial justice in rejecting their demands.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. § 468; Dec. Dig. § 132.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; E. K. Skinner, Judge.
Actions by Gustave Helmas and wife against Elias Pailet, and by Elizabeth Healy against Elias Pailet. The actions were consolidated; verdicts for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Ryan, Gautreaux & Sbisa, for appellants. A. D. Danziger, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
BREAUX, C. J.
Plaintiffs brought this suit for trespass and they claimed damages in the sum of $5,000.
The case was tried by jury, and verdict was found in favor of defendant.
On this verdict, judgment was rendered on the 15th day of December, 1909, and signed on the 17th of the same month.
The plaintiffs applied for an appeal.
The order granting them an appeal, sus-pensive and devolutive, was signed on the 22d day of December, 1909.
The appeal was made returnable on the 10th day of January, 1910.
On that day, the transcript was filed.
The defendant and appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground alleged: That as the judgment was rendered in favor of defendant and signed on the respective dates before mentioned, and as the bond of appeal was not filed until December 29, 1909, the appeal should be dismissed.
Considering the motion to dismiss the sus-pensive appeal.
Suspensive appeals may be taken within 10 days after the judgment has been signed, excluding Sundays. Code Prae. art. 575.
Deducting December 19th and 26th (Sundays) two days, the time for a suspensive appeal had not elapsed.
If the aj>peal were dismissed because not timely taken for a suspensive appeal, the success of the mover would amount really to nothing.
Beyond question the plaintiffs were within time to take a devolutive appeal.
The bond was furnished in the amount required by the judge a quo.
The appeal is good as devolutive if filed after the 10 days. Reed v. His Creditors, 37 La. Ann. 907; Successions of Keller, 39 La. Ann. 579, 2 South. 553; Chaffe v. Carroll, 34 La. Ann. 122; Dwight v. Barrow, 25 La. Ann. 424.
The appeal was timely taken for a suspen-sive appeal.
Motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.