Case Name: A. Baldwin & Co. vs. C. H. Mumford et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-03
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 348
Docket Number: No. 8800
Parties: A. Baldwin & Co. vs. C. H. Mumford et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 348–350

Head Matter:
No. 8800.
A. Baldwin & Co. vs. C. H. Mumford et al.
» Where it ia apparent that an appellee can recover fiom a surety on an appeal bond the amount of the judgment appealed from, if affirmed, the appeal will not be dismissed owing to alleged deficiencies in the bond.
Where the proof shows that plaintiffs in attachment were authorized to entertain the fears declared in their petition, the execution of the writ can oause no damage. The verdict of a jury allowing such on a reoonventional demand lacks foundation and must fall.
APPEAL from the Twelfth District Court, Parish of Grant. Harbin, J.
Jno. 0. Wioleliffe for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Thorpe, Peterman & Thorpe for Defendants and Appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
• The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The motion to dismiss contains charges that the bond of appeal is deficient.
We deem it unnecessary to inquire into them specially. It is patent from the face and tenor of the bond, which is given for one-half over the amount of the judgment and which expressly binds the surety up to that amount, should the judgment be affirmed, that the appellee, in case of such affirmance and of suit on the bond, would be entitled to recover.
The motion is denied.