Case Name: Succession of Mrs. Delphine L. ABRAHAM. Bessie Hardee Feazel et al. Opponents and Appellants
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1962-01-15
Citations: 136 So. 2d 471
Docket Number: No. 400
Parties: Succession of Mrs. Delphine L. ABRAHAM. Bessie Hardee Feazel et al. Opponents and Appellants.
Judges: Before FRUGÉ, . CULPEPPER and HOOD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 136
Pages: 471–484

Head Matter:
Succession of Mrs. Delphine L. ABRAHAM. Bessie Hardee Feazel et al. Opponents and Appellants.
No. 400.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
Jan. 15, 1962.
John Makar; Natchitoches, for opposition appellants.
Watson, Williams & Brittain, by Arthur C. Watson, Natchitoches,- Gravel, Sheffield & Führer, by James S. Gravel, Alexandria, for Bishop of Alexandria, appellee.
Before FRUGÉ, . CULPEPPER and HOOD, JJ.

Opinion:
HOOD, Judge.
This is an action instituted by appellants opposing tlie final account filed by the testamentary executors of the estate of Mrs. Delphine L. Abraham, deceased. Judgment was rendered by the trial court dismissing the opposition and approving and homolo-gating the final account filed by the executors. The opponents have appealed from that judgment.
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal
Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellants failed to pay timely the fees required by law for filing the appeal and the costs of preparing the transcript, and that they failed to file timely a sufficient appeal bond.
The judgment of the district court was signed on November 17, 1960. A motion for rehearing was denied on December 18, 1960, and on that same day appellants moved for and were granted a devolutive appeal, the return date of that appeal being set for February 7, 1961. Thereafter, on motions of the Chief Deputy Clerk of the trial court,.three separate orders were signed by the trial judge, on February 3, April 3 and May 31, 1961, each extending the return date of the appeal for successive 60-day periods, the last such order extending the return date until July 31,1961.
A devolutive appeal bond in the full amount fixed by the court was filed by Bessie Hardee Feazel, one of the appellants, on February 3, 1961, which was prior to the original return date and within 90 days after the motion for rehearing was denied. 0'n motion of appellees, however," the appellant who furnished this bond was ruled into court to show cause why the bond should not be decreed to be insufficient, and this rule was made absolute on March 21, the judgment to that effect being signed two days later. On March 22, 1961, a good and sufficient devolutive appeal bond was filed by all of the appellants. The fee required by law for taking an appeal and the costs of preparing the transcript were not paid to the Clerk of Court, however, until July 14, 1961. The transcript was then lodged in this court on July 19, 1961.
Appellees contend that the orders of the trial court extending the return date on three separate occasions are invalid because they were not granted for "sufficient cause." It is argued that the clerk requested the extensions simply to give the appellants more time within which to pay the appeal costs, and that this does not constitute sufficient cause for the granting of that type of- relief. There is nothing in the record to show that this was the sole reason why the Qerk requested the extensions. The last two motions for extension filed by the Chief Deputy Clerk simply recite that "he has been unable to complete the transcript," and no reason is assigned for requesting the first extension.
Article 2125 of the LSA-Code of Civil Procedure provides that the return date may be extended by the trial court "for sufficient cause," on the application of the Clerk, or of the deputy clerk preparing the record of appeal. Since the record does not show that the return date was extended without sufficient cause or that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting these extensions, we conclude that the return date was properly extended from time to time and that the transcript was timely lodged in this court prior to the extended return date.
Appellees further contend that the appeal should be dismissed, at least as to all of the appellants except Mrs. Feazel, because an 'appeal bond was not filed within 90 days of the court's refusal to grant a timely application for a new trial, as required by LSA-C.C.P. Article 2087. The first appeal bond supplied by Mrs. Feazel (which was later decreed to be invalid) was filed within the 90-day period, but the second bond which was furnished by all of the appellants the day after the first bond was held to be insufficient was filed after that 90-day period had elapsed.
Article 5124 of the LSA-Revised Code of Civil Procedure provides that within four days of the rendition of judgment holding the original bond insufficient or invalid, the party furnishing it may correct any defects therein by furnishing a new bond, and that:
"The new or supplemental bond is retroactive to the date the original bond was furnished, and maintains in effect the order, judgment, writ, mandate, or process conditioned on the furnishing of security."
The jurisprudence of this State has been established to the effect that only one appeal bond is required for multiple appellants from a single judgment. Vienne v. Chalona, 203 La. 450, 14 So.2d 54; Hernandez v. Ethyl Corporation, La.App. 1 Cir., 83 So.2d 150 (Cert. denied), and cases cited therein. Since an adequate appeal bond was timely filed by one of the appellants in this case, we conclude that insofar as the requirements for furnishing an appeal bond are concerned, the appeal was timely perfected for all of the appellants.
For the reasons herein assigned, therefore, the motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal is denied.