Case Name: Union Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church vs. Civil Sheriff et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-12
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 1461
Docket Number: No. 8060
Parties: Union Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church vs. Civil Sheriff et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 1461–1463

Head Matter:
No. 8060.
Union Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church vs. Civil Sheriff et al.
Though the name of the surety is not inserted in the body of an Appeal bond, the fact that such surety has signed the bond under the name of the principal, is sufficient.
A promissory note may be antedated.
A party against whom executory process has issued, cannot enjoin it, on the ground that the property seized does not belong to him. ,
Damages cannot be allowed in the same decree which dissolves an injunction in cases of ex* ecutory process. Previous Decisions affirmed.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the parish of Orleans. Bightor, J
Joseph P. Hornor, Francis W. Baker and Jas. A. Beid for Defendants and Appellees:
Pirst — A promissory note may be antedated, and will be valid in point of law, there being no statute to the contrary. Story on Promissory Notes, chap. 1, sec. 48-; Baylayon Bills, chap. 3, Sec. 7; Ghitty on Bills, chap. 5, p. 169 (8th edition).
Second — The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, he must make out his case.
Third — The sale of property seized under executory process cannot be enjoined on the ground that it does not belong to the defendant, but to others; it is for the latter to resist the process if they desire to do so. - 30 An. 593.
Pourth — 'Where an appeal is manifestly taken for'delay damages should be given for such frivolous appeal. 21 An. 50 j 1 Eennen, Appeal, ix, f.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is on the following grounds, to wit:
1st. That the bond is insufficient in amount for a suspensive appeal.
2d. That there'is no security named in the body of the bond.
First. The appeal is:taken from a judgment dissolving an injunction with one hundred dollars damages.
The appeal bond is for three hundred dollars, and being an amount for one-half over and above the damages awarded by the judgment and costs, is sufficient in amount.
Second. The bond is signed by the principal and under the name of the principal, is the name of another purporting to be that of the surety. We had occasion to consider this ground of the insufficiency of the bond in the case of Patrick Coyle vs. Succession of Wm. Crevy, where the same alleged irregularity existed, and in the judgment rendered on the rehearing in said case, we held that it was not such an irregularity as would vitiate the bond.
The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.