Case Name: Samuel L. Boyd vs. B. S. Labranche, Sheriff, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-03
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 285
Docket Number: No. 8764
Parties: Samuel L. Boyd vs. B. S. Labranche, Sheriff, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 285–288

Head Matter:
No. 8764.
Samuel L. Boyd vs. B. S. Labranche, Sheriff, et al.
In neither suspensive nor devolutive appeals is citation necessary, when the appeal is taken by motion in open court at the same term when the judgment is rendered.
Judgments of courts, other than those of Hew Orleans, take effect only from the last day of the term at which they were rendered. Whatever may be -their actual date, their legal date is the last day of the term, and therefore a paity cast has ten days from the adjournment of the court in which to file his bond for a suspensive appeal.
The validity of attachment process depends upon the state of facts existing at the time it was obtained. An attaching creditor may mistake his debtor’s intentions, or those intentions may have been correctly divined on one day, and have been changed on the next by the fitful debtor. If the attaching creditor had good reason to believe that his debtor was about to dispose of his property to defraud bis creditors and attaches on that ground, and his process is properly served, it wiLl not be invalidated because, in fact, the debtor after-wards absconded. Another creditor, afterwards attaching on the ground that the debtor had left the State permanently, will not take precedence of the first attachment.
APPEAL from the Twenty-sixth District Court, Parish of St. Charles. Hahn, J.
L. Be Poorter for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Chas. A Baquié and E. T. Florance for Defendants and Appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Manning, J.
The motion is for dismissal because the defendants have never been cited.
The appeal was taken by motion in open court., made and granted the day after the judgment was rendered, and therefore citation was' not necessary.
We might stop here, since that is the sole ground stated in the motion, hut that the meaning was stated at bar to be that a suspensive appeal- bond must be perfected and presented during the same term the motion for that kind of appeal is made.
This is a novel proposition. The Code of Practice gives no countenance to it, nor does any decision of this Court.
The judgment, was rendered Aug. 2,1882, in the court for St. Charles Parish. That term of the court ended August 25th. The judgment there fore did not take effect till this last date. Code Prac. Art. 555. Legally the date of the judgment is August 25th, 1882. The appellant had ten days thereafter in which to file his bond. He filed it on that day.
The motion is refused.