Case Name: L. J. Mestier & Co. vs. A. Chevalier Pavement Co., Ltd.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1902
Citations: 108 La. 562
Docket Number: No. 14,029
Parties: L. J. Mestier & Co. vs. A. Chevalier Pavement Co., Ltd.
Judges: The opinion of the court, on the motion to dismiss the appeal, was-delivered by Nicholls, C. J.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 562–569

Head Matter:
No. 14,029.
L. J. Mestier & Co. vs. A. Chevalier Pavement Co., Ltd.
Syllabus.
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1. The appeal of particular appellant will not be dismissed in limine on the-ground that he has no interest to appeal, when the whole case is before the-court on appeals of others, and an examination of the entire record would be requisite to ascertain the relations of parties.
2. Where appellant furnishes an appeal bond for the amount fixed by the court, the appeal will be maintained as devolutive, even if the bond be too small for a suspensive appeal.
On the Mebit».
1. The amicable compounder not having been sworn and some of the facts not having been placed before him in the arbitration, his return was properly annulled.
2. An amount paid by one of the parties, which is charged on joint account and', afterward credited on the personal account is a proper showing of indebtedness and credit.
8. The weight of testimony sustains an item for cement used for joint account.
4. Credit is entered corresponding with remittitur made by plaintiff.
5. A corporation may not hav? power to bind itself as a partner, but may bind' itself to share in the profits of contracts it is authorized to perform, with anyone from whom It receives adequate consideration.
B. Plaintiff, under the agreements, had an interest in the sums earned.
7. Where, in an article of agreement to submit to an amicable compounder, parties make admissions in matters not to be submitted to him, there is no reason, in case it becomes evident that It was not at all a matter in which there-was any difference between them not to give it consideration, and further, where it was made manifest by the testimony that it was correctly charged, the finding of the District Court decreeing that it was correctly charged will .not be disturbed.
8. An amount earned in a joint venture under a contract with the United States government was properly charged.
9. The demand of the intervenor on appeal to set aside agreements between plaintiff and defendant in order that she may recover her claim is rejected, and the judgment In this respect remains undisturbed.
10. There was a judicial sequestration and a sequestrator appointed contradictorily. The use of the word receiver was a misnomer. He was appointed to collect bills and to prevent loss. The sequestration was maintained and the judicial sequestrator ordered to deliver the property, after deducting his costs, and reasonable charges. There is nothing in this suggesting irregularity, or a receiver’s overcharge.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans— St. Paul J-
Benjamin Bice Forman, for Plaintiffs, Appellees.
Dinkelspiel & Hart, for A. Chevalier Pavement Company, Limited, Defendant, and H. B. McMurray, Receiver, Appellants.
Henry Ohiapella, for Mrs. Marie Louise Delcalzal, Interyenors, Appellant.
The opinion of the court, on the motion to dismiss the appeal, was-delivered by Nicholls, C. J.
The opinion of the court, on the merits, was delivered by Breaux, J,

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Nicholls, C. J.
The plaintiffs move to dismiss the appeal of H. B. McMurray, receiver, on the grounds:
1st — That he has no interest in the controversy between plaintiff and defendant and was only appointed for the purpose of collecting the paving certificates pledged by defendant to plaintiffs.
2nd — The district judge had no power to grant to H. B. McMurray a suspensive appeal from a money judgment exceeding two thousand dollars on a bond of two hundred and fifty dollars, and the order for a suspensive appeal should be rescinded, and is not sufficient to give-this court jurisdiction of the appeal.
The application for the dismissal of this .appeal is supported by no brief in behalf of the same.
Counsel can scarcely expect this court to seek and ascertain for itself the facts on which such a motion is based.
We are told that the receiver has no interest to appeal, but the lower court, which was fully advised of the situation, granted him one. And we are informed by appellants' brief that the appellee made an unsuccessful attempt in the lower court to have the order for the same rescinded on the ground of want of interest.
In order to ascertain what interest the receiver has in the matters involved and what issues he has raised or proposes to raise on appeal, we would have to examine a very large transcript, without any aid or assistance from counsel. The whole case is before us on appeal of ether parties and from the information to be obtained by us later we will be able to deal advisedly with the rights of all parties. If the receivei has no interest in the controversy, we can so declare at that time. (Succession of Fortier, 51 Ann. 1567, 1568.)
The receiver, as appellant, furnished a bond of appeal for two hundred and fifty dollars, the amount of bond ordered by the court. The appeal cannot be dismissed on the ground that the amount is too small. The appeal is good at least as a devolutive appeal.
For the reasons assigned, the application is denied.