Case Name: GRAY v. BIRD & SON, Inc., et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1943-03-31
Citations: 12 So. 2d 828
Docket Number: No. 6600
Parties: GRAY v. BIRD & SON, Inc., et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 12
Pages: 828–830

Head Matter:
GRAY v. BIRD & SON, Inc., et al.
No. 6600.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.
March 31, 1943.
Cook, Lee, Clark & Egan, of Shreveport, for appellants.
R. J. Newson, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
DREW, Judge.
In this court appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason the appeal bond was executed four days before judgment was signed and filed. The judgment on its face says that it was read and signed on December 5, 1942. The minutes of the Court and the filing of the judgment show it was signed and filed on December 9, 1942. The appeal bond is dated December 5, 1942, and was filed December 9, 1942.
At the same time appellee filed his motion to dismiss the appeal, he filed an answer ' to the appeal praying that the judgment of the lower court be amended by increasing the award to a period of not more than 400 weeks at 65% of his weekly wages. There was no reservation of his rights under the motion to dismiss and the answer was not filed in the alternative, if the motion to dismiss was not sustained. We are therefore of the opinion that by filing the answer to the appeal asking for an increase in the judgment, appellee has waived all rights' if any he haa -under the motion to dismiss.
There is another sound reason why the motion to dismiss is not good and that is that it was filed here more than three days after the filing of the transcript. Power v. Christina, 7 La.App. 651; In re Lindner, 113 La. 772, 37 So. 720; Powell Motor Company v. A. Christina & Bros., 8 La.App. 174; Stovall v. Thomas Lumber Company, La.App., 189 So. 379; Scheen v. Hain, 141 La. 606, 75 So. 427.
Since both of the above stated reasons for overruling the motion to dismiss are sound, it is unnecessary to discuss the application of Act 112 of 1916, as amended by Act 284 of 1928 (Articles 1921 to 1930, Dart's Statutes) to the motion to dismiss which, in our opinion, is another reason why the motion is without merit. It is therefore overruled.