Case Name: GOOTHYE v. DELATOUR et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1903-06-08
Citations: 111 La. 766
Docket Number: No. 14,742
Parties: GOOTHYE v. DELATOUR et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 765–775

Head Matter:
(35 South. 896.)
No. 14,742.
GOOTHYE v. DELATOUR et al.
(June 8, 1903.)
APPEAL — DISMISSAL — DEFECTIVE BOND — FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE—KNOWLEDGE OF GRANTEE.
1. Where several appellants give an appeal' bond, which in every respect conforms with the requirements of the law except that, instead of all the appellants binding themselves to prosecute the appeal, only one does so, the appeal will not be dismissed on the ground of the appellants having failed to bind themselves to-prosecute the appeal.
2. An error in the recital of the date of the judgment appealed from will not vitiate the appeal bond, the judgment being otherwise unmistakably identified.
On the Merits.
3. The purchaser knew that a verdict had been returned against his vendor for a large-amount at the date that he bought the property the sale of which is attacked by plaintiff, who-is a judgment creditor of the vendor.
4. The date of a debt for tort cannot be confined to the judgment which follows a credit, but it dates at least from the verdict. It was after verdict that the buyer bought the property the title to which property is attacked.
5. The facts of the case lead to the conclusion that the purchase was not a real transaction, that it was in accordance with an understanding to protect the title and thwart plaintiff in his attempt to recover his judgment.
6. The property was returned to the wife of the vendor, who is not shown to have had personal rights, or to have paid the price.
7. Where a sale is attacked as simulated, and a prima íacie case oí simulation is made out, and the purchaser fails to offer rebuttal testimony to show that he actually paid anything ior the property, the sale will be decreed to be a simulation.
8. The declaration in the deed that the price was paid Will not suffice. It must be sustained by other testimony.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; George H. Tkéard, Judge.
Action by Frank Goothye against Louis Delatour and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Clegg & Quintero and Joseph Oscar Daspit, for appellants. Louis P. Bryant, for appellee.
Rehearing denied February 15, 1904.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PROVOSTY,.J.
The appeal bond in this case, after reciting that all the appellants and their surety are well and truly bound unto the clerk of court in the sum of $600, proceeds, as follows:
"Whereas, the above-bounden Louis Delatour, Mrs. Louis Delatour, and Louis Jacobs have filed this day a motion for appeal from a final judgment rendered against the said Louis Delatour, Mrs. Louis Delatour, and Louis Jacobs in the suit of Frank Goothye vs. Louis Delatour and others, No. 65,769 of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, on the 12th day of January, 1893, and signed on the 16th day of January, 1893, and the appeal has been allowed: Now the condition of the above obligation is such: that the above-bound Louis Delatour shall prosecute this appeal, and shall satisfy whatever judgment may be rendered against them, or that the same shall be satisfied by the proceeds of the sale of their estate, real or personal, if they be cast in this appeal; otherwise that the said American Bonding Company shall be liable in their place. [Signed] Mrs. Louis Delatour, 'Louis Delatour, Louis Jacobs. By their attorneys, Clegg & Quintero. American Bonding Company of Baltimore. By W. C. Dufour, Vice President."
There are two defects in this bond: First, the date of the judgment appealed from is given as 1893, whereas the true date is 1903; and, second, only one of the appellants binds himself to prosecute the appeal, whereas the regular way would have been for all of them to do so. These defects are made the grounds of a motion to dismiss.
We do not think they are fatal to the appeal. The error in the date of the judgment is harmless, since the judgment appealed from is otherwise unmistakably identified. The other defect is also harmless, since the bond will be binding upon its subscribers if the defendant Delatour does not prosecute the appeal. In the eases of Russ v. Creditors, 45 La. Ann. 445, 12 South. 627, and Rawle v. Feltus, 33 La. Ann. 421, where the appeal bond was held to be invalid because the appellant had not bound himself to prosecute the appeal, the appellant might have nullified the bond and released the surety by simply not prosecuting the appeal; but here the condition is express that Louis Delatour shall prosecute the appeal. The test in all such cases is whether recovery could be had on the bond. Pleasants v. Botts, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 127. According to this test, the present bond is sufficient, since the appellants and the surety agree to be bound if Louis Delatour does not prosecute the appeal.
The motion to dismiss is denied.