Case Name: Edward H. ROBERTSON, III, and Christine Robertson, Man and Wife, Edward H. Robertson, III, Father and Administrator of Lise Robertson and Carolyn Robertson, Minors, Rebecca Robertson v. Walter NORWOOD, Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1970-04-06
Citations: 234 So. 2d 509
Docket Number: No. 4178
Parties: Edward H. ROBERTSON, III, and Christine Robertson, Man and Wife, Edward H. Robertson, III, Father and Administrator of Lise Robertson and Carolyn Robertson, Minors, Rebecca Robertson v. Walter NORWOOD, Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company.
Judges: Before REDMANN, BARNETTE and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 234
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
Edward H. ROBERTSON, III, and Christine Robertson, Man and Wife, Edward H. Robertson, III, Father and Administrator of Lise Robertson and Carolyn Robertson, Minors, Rebecca Robertson v. Walter NORWOOD, Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company.
No. 4178.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
April 6, 1970.
Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Read, Wood Brown, III, New Orleans, for Walter Norwood and Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance ¿o., movers, defendants-appel-lees.
Frank C. O’Halloran, Jr., and Charles R. Maloney, New Orleans, for Edward H. Robertson, III, Christine Robertson and others, opponents, plaintiffs-appellants.
Before REDMANN, BARNETTE and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the motion for devolu-tive appeal filed February 9, 1970 and appeal bond filed March 4, 1970 were too late as an appeal from a judgment signed November 12, 1969.
The motion and bond were timely filed under LSA-C.C.P. 2087(2), because filed within 90 days of the trial court's refusal on December 12, 1969 of a timely filed application for a new trial. That application, filed November 20, 1969, was timely under C.C.P. art. 1974 because filed within three days of a re quired notice of judgment which was mailed November 17, 1969- Notice was required, C.C.P. art. 1913, because the case was taken under advisement by the trial court, as the court's minutes of November 10, 1969 show.
Accordingly the motion to dismiss is denied.