Case Name: BRADLEY et al. v. DAVIS et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1910-11-14
Citations: 127 La. 368
Docket Number: No. 18,248
Parties: BRADLEY et al. v. DAVIS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 368–372

Head Matter:
(53 South. 653.)
No. 18,248.
BRADLEY et al. v. DAVIS et al.
(Nov. 14, 1910.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1910.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Appeal and Error (§ 797*) — Motion to Dismiss — Dismissal.
The three days on which the motion to dismiss should have been filed had elapsed, and the motion, not being filed in the prescribed time, is dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3149-3154; Dec. Dig. § 797.*]
On the Merits.
2. Injunction (§ 178*) — Dissolution on Bond — Denial.
. The allegation- that to dissolve an injunction on bond would work an irreparable injury by changing the possession of immovable property from plaintiff to defendant is a sufficient allegation of irreparable injury to deny the dissolution of the injunction. The test to be applied to the dissolution on bond is whether plaintiff '-will suffer irreparable injury by such dissolution, and in this case such injury might arise.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Injunction, Dec. Dig. § 178.*]
3. Injunction (§ 175*) — Dissolution — Grounds.
Where there are several defendants in injunction, and only one applies for the dissolution of the injunction, he will have to make a very good showing in order for the court to grant his prayer.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Injunction, Dec. Dig. § 175.*]
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Carroll; F. X. Ransdell, Judge.
Action by Josephine Bradley and others against C. F. Davis and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant Davis appeals.
Affirmed.
Davis, Webb & Browne and C. S. Wyly, for appellant. John B. Stone and R. V. Reeves, for appellees.

Opinion:
Motion to Dismiss — -Not Timely Filed.
BREAUX, C. J.
The three days within which the motion to dismiss should have been filed had elapsed at the date it was filed.
The motion is overruled.