Case Name: I. N. Glover vs. J. H. M. Taylor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1886-06
Citations: 38 La. Ann. 634
Docket Number: No. 1144
Parties: I. N. Glover vs. J. H. M. Taylor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 634–639

Head Matter:
No. 1144.
I. N. Glover vs. J. H. M. Taylor.
1. A suspensivo appeal bond reciting in substance tliafc it is given as surety that appellant shall x>rosecute bis appeal, and pay such judgment as may be rendered against him is. good.
% A devolutive ax>peal bond filed in tbe clerk’s oí lice before tbe expiration of the return-day fixed in the order of appeal, is in time.
3. An agreement entered into between two rival candidates for a public office, whereby each one of them undertakes and binds himself to pay the other, in case of liis own election, one-half of the not profits of the office, for the term, is in violation of good order; and public policy, subversive of tbe best interests of society, has a tendency to destroy tbe safe-guards of the ballot-box and cannot be enforced by the courts.
APPEAL from the Third District Court, Parish of Claiborne-Young, J.
Allen Barksdale, John A. Bichardson and John B. Phipps for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Pfjan & Pierson and J. TF. Holbertfor Defendant and Appellant:

Opinion:
Tlie opinion of tlie Court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
Plaintiff moves to dismiss this appeal on the following-grounds, viz:
1st. That the suspensive appeal bond is not conditioned that appellant shall prosecute his appeal; nor that he shall pay and satisfy "whatever judgment'may be rendered against him if he be cast in his appeal; ncr that he shall pay the cost of both the Supreme Court and inferior court if he be cast in his appeal."
2d. That there is no order of appeal to support the bond last filed, on June 3,1886.
The judge a quo in his order, granted in open court appeals suspensive and devolutive returnable to this Court according to law on the-return day, and suspensive appeal bond was fixed according to law and the devolutive appeal bond at $175.
Appellant furnished a suspensive appeal bond in the sum of $1,300,. but the technical sufficiency of same is complained of and may be open to objection — but with reference to which we find it unnecessary to express an opinion, inasmuch as the appellant filed a devolutiveappeal bond before the return day had expired. This bond is not objected to as to form. The quotation from the order of appeal above-given was ample authority for it.
The fact that the transcript had been previously prepared and certificate signed makes no difference.
It was submitted to and filed by the clerk in time, as same was done-prior to the return day fixed in the order of appeal, granting both a devolutive and suspensive appeal. 35 Ann. 937, Thomas vs. Bienvenu.
Motion refused.